Controversial opinions about Bond films

1692693695697698707

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,216
    I’m absolutely against the fan narrative that Craig’s run should have been like CR. I think the film works as it’s own thing, a stripped down introduction to Craig Bond. So QOS trying to leach off of it and prolong the Bond Begins story instead of trying to progress Craig’s run was IMO a big mistake and unfortunately gave some fans the impression that that was supposed to show what Craig’s run will be like. The impression I always got from the marketing of CR was that that future films would further reintroduce the Bond elements people expect like Q and Moneypenny. Instead we got Tanner, who’s just a plain guy.

    So by the time those were brought in for SF, it wasn’t a “betrayal” of CR/QOS, it was an inevitability that should have come much sooner. I probably would have brought in Moneypenny for the second film, then Q for the 3rd film. But because QOS didn’t bother, SF was tasked with bringing both at the same time.

    An aspect I do like of Craig’s run is that we see evolution with his films. I like that by SPECTRE we finally get Craig with all the Bondian elements you expect from a Bond film in full. It could have been better, but it was nice to see Craig’s run at least try swinging for a traditional installment where Bond has it all together. That PTS with Bond casually walking on the rooftops for me is Craig really playing up that more traditional Bond. Like that we saw him build up to that after starting off as a diamond in the rough in CR. It’s part of what makes his run feel like a self contained run of films.
  • I probably would have brought in Moneypenny for the second film, then Q for the 3rd film. But because QOS didn’t bother, SF was tasked with bringing both at the same time.

    I remember reading in Some King of Hero that some early drafts of QoS included an introduction for Moneypenny; I suppose her character became Tanner in the final script. Quite a shame it didn't happened IMO. I wonder if Eon had, at that time, an actress in mind for the role.

    Otherwise, I totally agree with you @thelivingroyale. I like Casino Royale, but it's far from being my favorite Craig installment and, while I don't have any problem with the Venice sequence even if I prefer Fleming's ending, I've never been fond of the first act in Madagascar/Miami. It belongs to another movie in my opinion, contrasts too much with Fleming's story and is far too long.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,216
    I like all the stuff in the Bahamas, but I agree that the first act is pretty disposable. Once Eva Green shows up the film electrifies.

    That said, I only prefer SF over CR. So it’s my second favorite Craig, but not at all a darling like most fans seem to make of it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,157
    What? CR could be better?! Could it? Well, maybe if they hadn't cut the scene where Bond carries a naked, squealing Vesper out onto the deck of the yacht, throws her into the sea and dives in after her...
  • Posts: 526
    I wouldn’t change one thing about Casino. It’s the perfect Bond film. Got rid of the silliness, gadgets, and basically everything that had plagued the franchise since day 1. I think most agree the Craig arc is self-contained—The CR, QOS Bond should have stayed as he was for the entire run. That way, his Bond would definitely have been distinct (it is anyway, but would have been much more so). In CR, and QOS, Bond was cold-blooded, focused, and flawed. But by Skyfall, we started to see A little more of Moore’s Bond creep in. By Spectre—way more. And in NTTD, just a totally different Craig Bond. Can’t really compare it to anyone else. Maybe an assimilation of all the Bonds? Including the QOS and CR Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,216
    See, I like that Craig’s Bond evolved towards the more traditional Bond. I didn’t like how QOS tried to continue the same Bond Begins approach of CR (but poorer).

    If they just kept making CR type films it would have gotten old. Bringing back Q, Moneypenny, the larger than life villains, etc was what I always figured would happen after CR. It just took til film #3 to get there.
  • I wouldn’t change one thing about Casino. It’s the perfect Bond film. Got rid of the silliness, gadgets, and basically everything that had plagued the franchise since day 1.
    It's quite a controversial opinion in the sense that what you considered as what plagued the franchise since day 1 is also what allowed the franchise to exist since this day and to continue to exist trough the decades. Skyfall was a necessary step, and a successful one in view of the box-office results, far from sharing anything with the More era IMO. Maybe it could have happened later in Craig's run, but at some time it was needful to allow his character to be Bond and not just any protagonist of an action movie of the time.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    The CR, QOS Bond should have stayed as he was for the entire run. That way, his Bond would definitely have been distinct (it is anyway, but would have been much more so). In CR, and QOS, Bond was cold-blooded, focused, and flawed.
    Agree with this 100% - they definitely backtracked after QOS. Shame.

  • Posts: 131
    Skyfall was a necessary step, and a successful one in view of the box-office results, far from sharing anything with the More era IMO.

    Completely agree, and I also prefer Skyfall to CR. CR was a necessary reset and a well-executed one, but to me it is too pared down while Skyfall is the most quintessentially Bond film of the Craig era and a damn good one at that, fast, lavish, and with a near-perfect balance between action and emotions.

    also, I am a fan of gadgets
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    I wouldn’t change one thing about Casino. It’s the perfect Bond film. Got rid of the silliness, gadgets, and basically everything that had plagued the franchise since day 1.
    Skyfall was a necessary step, and a successful one in view of the box-office results...
    100%
  • See, I like that Craig’s Bond evolved towards the more traditional Bond. I didn’t like how QOS tried to continue the same Bond Begins approach of CR (but poorer).

    If they just kept making CR type films it would have gotten old. Bringing back Q, Moneypenny, the larger than life villains, etc was what I always figured would happen after CR. It just took til film #3 to get there.

    Completely agree, I like how Craig’s films evolved, and I think QoS definitely dragged out the Bond begins stuff longer than they needed to. Forster put the gunbarrel at the end to symbolise the end of him becoming Bond, but... That’s just the end of CR. And wasn’t “I never left” meant to show that M had got it wrong, and that Bond had been doing his duty the whole time?
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I wouldn’t change one thing about Casino. It’s the perfect Bond film. Got rid of the silliness, gadgets, and basically everything that had plagued the franchise since day 1.
    Skyfall was a necessary step, and a successful one in view of the box-office results...
    100%

    Yeah it might be trendy to hate SF now, but if the Craig era had carried on in the direction of QoS I don’t think it’d have been anywhere near as successful. That film was generally seen as a misstep, and by 2012 the gritty reboot trend was starting to die out. SF came along at just the right time.
  • Posts: 526
    I wouldn’t change one thing about Casino. It’s the perfect Bond film. Got rid of the silliness, gadgets, and basically everything that had plagued the franchise since day 1.
    It's quite a controversial opinion in the sense that what you considered as what plagued the franchise since day 1 is also what allowed the franchise to exist since this day and to continue to exist trough the decades. Skyfall was a necessary step, and a successful one in view of the box-office results, far from sharing anything with the More era IMO. Maybe it could have happened later in Craig's run, but at some time it was needful to allow his character to be Bond and not just any protagonist of an action movie of the time.

    Agreed it is controversial, but that’s how I always wanted to see James Bond. And Craig was the perfect actor to do it—lightning in a bottle. I’m not big on humor in action films, especially one about an alcoholic, womanizing, brutal and cold assassin. Let him use his wits to survive, and not build contrived and obvious scenes for an exploding pen or whatever. I’m sure I’m in the minority, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t like many of the Bond films, I’ve seen them all many times. Grew up watching Moore on ABC tv until I went to the theatre at age 10 to see AVTAK. But, Craig took my fandom to an entirely different level.
  • Agreed it is controversial, but that’s how I always wanted to see James Bond. And Craig was the perfect actor to do it—lightning in a bottle. I’m not big on humor in action films, especially one about an alcoholic, womanizing, brutal and cold assassin. Let him use his wits to survive, and not build contrived and obvious scenes for an exploding pen or whatever.
    That's totally understandable, even though I'm not to sure about the brutal part. As a rookie agent, he may make mistakes and, in this context, be violent; however, in QoS, I never thought his brutality made sense. CR was all about Bond's learning to become an experienced agent, the logical step in a sequel would have been to see him as "a wonderful machine" to quote Mathis, making no mistakes, no blunders, a calculating agent so effective in his job that he lost all humanity (like Phillip Masters in Fleming's story). This is why personally I never liked Craig's portray in this film: I always felt it was a regression for the character from CR. While I wouldn't have mind one intermediary movie between QoS and SF (that could have been in this context his swan song), something close to Blood Stone for exemple, it should have distance itself from such characterization to portray a more experienced agent.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,216
    Yup. CR ended with Craig having become the traditional Bond by the end. But then comes along QOS and undoes that ending in order to give more of what people liked in CR but not done as well. That’s why I was glad SF did a time jump to Bond being a veteran because I didn’t want anymore of that Bond Begins story.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 526
    For me, I enjoyed his persona I’m QOS. Not really a step back, just becoming who he was. If he had a choice to kill or let a villain go, he’d kill them. That’s just his mindset. And this came back to bite him in Spectre as he let Blofeld live. He let Yussef live, but for a much different reason. The CR, Qos Bond would have killed Blofeld. And I get that some like the lighter comic Bond, but would an assassin really be like that? In other words, he could have become experienced and kept the Qos persona.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    Yes, indeed. Bond was a force of nature in QOS. Forster said he wanted QOS to be full tilt, 'like a bullet from a gun.' Bond was that bullet.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    Yup. CR ended with Craig having become the traditional Bond by the end. But then comes along QOS and undoes that ending in order to give more of what people liked in CR but not done as well. That’s why I was glad SF did a time jump to Bond being a veteran because I didn’t want anymore of that Bond Begins story.

    I thought QOS did a better origin story than CR. He actually learns things and changes over the course of the movie. The guy at the end of CR is pretty much the same guy that was in the PTS, but now he has a theme song...

    If anything, CR raises more questions about origins than it answers. Like: what the hell is wrong with this guy? Why is this naval commander so undisciplined, and what's he so angry about?
  • Posts: 131
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    One of the most brilliant scenes in the whole franchise


    Noooooo... surely this is the single lowest point of the whole franchise X_X
  • Posts: 131
    Many fans will disagree… I think LALD is too wacky (the drug trade plot is relevant as ever, but voodoo, really?) and, in places, cringeworthy (Solitaire’s virginity as a plot driver) to be an enjoyable watch. I confess I have not read Fleming’s novel it is loosely based on, but its Wikipedia plot summary reads much better than the film plot, making me wish the film had been a more faithful adaptation; two dramatic scenes from the book omitted in LALD have been used in FYEO and LTK to great effect. I understand how it can be a nostalgic callback for people who saw its theatrical release, but I never caught its vibe.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2021 Posts: 3,157
    .
  • Draco20Draco20 USA
    Posts: 18
    @rocketgun83
    You make some interesting points. I have to agree with you about the ski jump in TSWLM I agree that it is overrated. I always found the sky diving scene in the PTS in MR much much more impressive.

    A subject rarely touched on and I want to say something here is the racism in some of the earlier films. I thought DN, GF in particular were very racist. The scene where Bond orders Quarrel to "fetch my shoes" is cringe inducing. Sick.

    LALD gets a lot of criticism but I never thought this film racist. Now TMWTGG is much more racist and harkens back to the days of DN. The treatment of some of the SE Asian extras especially and Pepper making that racial slur to those police officers. Sad.
    After this movie the racial stuff is toned down and basically kept out of the movies.



  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    I'm so annoyed by the Lazenby era. He spent all his films resigning from MI6.
  • Some of the darkest/most tense moments in the 25 film Bond series happen in Roger Moore movies yet this rarely gets acknowledged. Some examples:

    Moonraker

    1. The centrifugal machine. One of the very few times in the series Bond is visibly distressed and flustered.
    2. Drax dismissing Corinne and being the cause of her demise. Yes, villains have killed people in the movies before and since. But the manner is particularly dark. The chasing of the dogs. The frantic and the panic is evidently clear.
    3. The whole plot fuelled by eugenics is particularly dark, especially considering Drax is a former Nazi in the novels

    For Your Eyes Only

    1. The Havelocks murder and the manner is cold
    2. Bond kicking Locque off the cliff in his car. Extremely cold and ruthless

    Octopussy
    1. The whole scene in Germany from start to finish is brilliantly tense. Played straight, frantic and fast paced. Bond confronting Orlov, he is angry. The desperation to stop the bomb is real. Nothing jokey about it. The clown costume argument from Moore detractors is weak and ill informed and tend to ignore Bond in Halloween costume like an overgrown trick or treater in Spectre. He dresses up as a clown to fit in at a circus to stop a bomb. It is tense.

    A View To A Kill

    1. Zorin machine gunning the miners is violent and brutally dark. Is it the film where the villain kills the most people.
    2. Always found Tibbet's death dark - Mayday in the back of a car is ruthless murder.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,602
    Yes lots of good points there: I always find those spots in Moonraker quite surprisingly dark too.
    Draco20 wrote: »
    A subject rarely touched on and I want to say something here is the racism in some of the earlier films. I thought DN, GF in particular were very racist. The scene where Bond orders Quarrel to "fetch my shoes" is cringe inducing. Sick.

    LALD gets a lot of criticism but I never thought this film racist. Now TMWTGG is much more racist and harkens back to the days of DN.

    No I think LALD is pretty questionable, really: there's certainly an atmosphere of 'all black people are working together against us'- Bond goes into two different bars and the entire clientele conspire to have him abducted both times; you can't trust a black cab driver etc. Even one of the two black CIA agents is actually a double agent. We get Strutter, sure, but he's not enough to dispel that element that the film presents.
    It's of its time and not saying it should be removed from circulation or anything, but it does seem to present black people as all being part of some cult.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I'm so annoyed by the Lazenby era. He spent all his films resigning from MI6.

    :))
  • Posts: 1,927
    Some of the darkest/most tense moments in the 25 film Bond series happen in Roger Moore movies yet this rarely gets acknowledged. Some examples:

    Moonraker

    1. The centrifugal machine. One of the very few times in the series Bond is visibly distressed and flustered.
    2. Drax dismissing Corinne and being the cause of her demise. Yes, villains have killed people in the movies before and since. But the manner is particularly dark. The chasing of the dogs. The frantic and the panic is evidently clear.
    3. The whole plot fuelled by eugenics is particularly dark, especially considering Drax is a former Nazi in the novels

    For Your Eyes Only

    1. The Havelocks murder and the manner is cold
    2. Bond kicking Locque off the cliff in his car. Extremely cold and ruthless

    Octopussy
    1. The whole scene in Germany from start to finish is brilliantly tense. Played straight, frantic and fast paced. Bond confronting Orlov, he is angry. The desperation to stop the bomb is real. Nothing jokey about it. The clown costume argument from Moore detractors is weak and ill informed and tend to ignore Bond in Halloween costume like an overgrown trick or treater in Spectre. He dresses up as a clown to fit in at a circus to stop a bomb. It is tense.

    A View To A Kill

    1. Zorin machine gunning the miners is violent and brutally dark. Is it the film where the villain kills the most people.
    2. Always found Tibbet's death dark - Mayday in the back of a car is ruthless murder.

    I'd add in the killing of Countess Lisl in FYEO; the knifing of 009 and his crash into the ambassador's residence and Bond's revenge on one of the knife-throwing twins to be rather graphic in OP; and the gruesome death of the Russian diver in the spinning wheels of Zorin's pump in AVTAK.
  • Posts: 2,402
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    One of the most brilliant scenes in the whole franchise


    This is one of my favourite moments in Moore's tenure. I get really pissed off, actually, about the way this scene gets talked about in bad faith in the public discourse ("Bond wears a clown suit, and that's bad", without the context of WHY he wears the clown suit or how damned tense that entire sequence is). If it doesn't work for someone, fair enough, but don't act like Bond just dresses like a clown for the hell of it. It's not like the Tarzan yell, which is JUST there for the sake of the gag.
  • Posts: 2,402
    My controversial take is that Roger Moore's Bond is actually generally quite faithful to the character. I don't think he's any further away from the Bond of the books than Connery is, really. The "silliness" and "quippiness" both get blown widely out of proportion when people talk about his tenure.
  • Posts: 2,161
    I've often said that. Moore in his first two outings was very much in line with Fleming's portrayal. Not the films themselves, of course.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    One of the most brilliant scenes in the whole franchise


    This is one of my favourite moments in Moore's tenure. I get really pissed off, actually, about the way this scene gets talked about in bad faith in the public discourse ("Bond wears a clown suit, and that's bad", without the context of WHY he wears the clown suit or how damned tense that entire sequence is). If it doesn't work for someone, fair enough, but don't act like Bond just dresses like a clown for the hell of it. It's not like the Tarzan yell, which is JUST there for the sake of the gag.

    +1. One of the tense-est and best third acts of the series. Moore is deadly serious here, and aside from a few moments that are too jarring for most people but not me, he plays the rest of the movie with a straight face. I seriously have fun with this movie
  • Posts: 391
    But you don't dress Bond as a clown! Imagine Craig dressed as a clown. The backlash would end the series right there.
Sign In or Register to comment.