Controversial opinions about Bond films

1698699701703704707

Comments

  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited September 2022 Posts: 7,021
    QBranch wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here’s a possible controversial opinion: the following Bond media should have gotten novelizations: Roald Dahl writing a YOLT book, someone from EA for NightFire, Bruce Feirstein or Raymond Benson for Everything or Nothing, and John Logan for Skyfall. These Bond adventures deserved to be in print as well. They would have worked well as books.

    Novelizing the games would be cool and interesting. I can see it now:

    Q's rappel launcher showed no signs of stress as Bond fired it over a ledge for the umpteenth time. Perhaps the whirring sound of the inner winch had become a tad louder, but otherwise still a sturdy little convenience. A topless woman looked on in disbelief as he scaled the wall beside her window. She attempted to cover her ample bosoms, without much success. There was little reaction exhibited from Bond - certainly not like that of a teenage boy who just had to indulge in a second glance, mouth agape. Bond simply nodded, straightening his yellow diamond necktie with his free hand as he continued to ascend the building. It was as if one had experienced such a moment countless times before. Par for the course. Perks of the job, you could say.

    Another excerpt:

    Suddenly, a floating animated text appeared in front of Bond. "LOADING...", it said. Hologram tech from one of Q's gadgets? Nikolai Diavolo's fancy business presentation to his fellow conspirators, perhaps? Bond awaited completely motionless, as if frozen in time. After a minute or two, the loading animation, with its shifting gray dots and silhouettes of naked women, had started to get to him. Sure, Bond had always had a thing for the opposite sex, but such glimpses of beauty became a form of torture when they were so abstract and repetitive. Suddenly, things took a turn for the worse. "DISC READ ERROR." Bond had ceased to exist, and along him, all traces of the reality he had ever known. No Q, no M, no Moneypenny. No Serena St. Germaine, and certainly no Nikolai Diavolo. There was only a quiet, overwhelming nothingness. And it would stay that way, until the player succeeded at cleaning the disc and getting the console to read it properly. But would it ever happen?

    Without a doubt, this was Bond's toughest assignment yet.
  • To the world at large, LIVE AND LET DIE is the most recognizable and popular Bond song.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    To the world at large, LIVE AND LET DIE is the most recognizable and popular Bond song.

    I'm not sure that's controversial or an opinion!
  • Not sure if controversial but it would be interesting if they did a deep fake of another Bond actor in an existing Bond film. For example, Connery in OHMSS or Dalton in Goldeneye.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 2022 Posts: 3,789
    Not sure if controversial but it would be interesting if they did a deep fake of another Bond actor in an existing Bond film. For example, Connery in OHMSS or Dalton in Goldeneye.

    Same for Bond Girls, one could deep fake Elizabeth Hurley or Sela Ward as Christmas Jones (TWINE) for example or any matured actress for Stacey Sutton (AVTAK).
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    The one thing I've always disliked about the (iconic) very last scene in Casino Royale is that huge MP5. Quite un-Bondian IMO. Feels like it would have been a perfect moment for the silenced PPK, if maybe a little impractical...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    At the same time, that became quite an iconic image for Craig. Which is ironic, because he doesn’t do too much machine gunning compared to Brosnan.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    The one thing I've always disliked about the (iconic) very last scene in Casino Royale is that huge MP5. Quite un-Bondian IMO. Feels like it would have been a perfect moment for the silenced PPK, if maybe a little impractical...
    When I was a small child watching CR in the cinema with my Dad, that moment really confused me...

    "Daddy, why does he have that big gun? Isn't it supposed to be the small one?"
    "He has more than one gun."
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited October 2022 Posts: 3,789
    Who else here have no problem with going down the Codename Theory route?

    Since given the events of NTTD?

    Just asking.....I'm interested to know.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Code name theory doesn’t make sense to me given that Bond has a designation number.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 4,162
    I tend to go with what I think the films are trying to tell me.

    In the case of the 1962-'02 stretch of films, it's clearly meant to be the same Bond, or at least different iterations of James Bond. Not only is Tracy referenced very specifically in different actor's tenures, but certain gadgets are too.

    Craig's run is very consciously a reboot, and again it seems to just be a different iteration of James Bond. I know this because this Bond seems to have exactly the same backstory of his parents dying at the age of 11 as Brosnan's Bond had.

    At no point do any of the official films hint at any sort of codename. Judi Dench's M doesn't imply that she knew a different Bond, and in fact is arguably a slightly different character in the Craig era than she is in the Brosnan era.

    So no, I think it's nonsense, and a bizarre attempt to apply concrete rationality to something fictional. In actuality the mental gymnastics needed to justify this silly idea is more effort than just watching the films and accepting that a character like Bond has many different versions over an array of films/media.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I think reboots are inevitable depending on how the times change over the years, and how much it makes sense for multiple actors to be essentially “the same exact guy”. For example, Brosnan would have been too young to be a 00 agent in 1962, but he believably could have still been one during the Cold War, as made explicit in GE when M calls him a relic of that era. Maybe Brosnan encountered a Dr. No in 1982, but that’s all in the imagination. With Craig and his successors, it would have been even more difficult to try to claim they were the same exact guys we saw since 1962. Craig Bond being a “Cold War relic” would be a bit of a stretch. I certainly can’t imagine a Bond born in 1990 to be the same guy Connery played. This is all inevitable due to the series having become an ongoing thing. No one would have predicted this in the 60s.

    Michael G Wilson has claimed since the 90s that he views all the actors being different Bonds rather than the same exact person, but all still based on Fleming’s creation. That actually makes perfect sense to me. Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton having married a Tracy doesn’t mean they’re the same person but rather because they’re based on the character from the novels who was married. Craig explicitly deviated from that, obviously, which puts his run in a more unique bubble.

    So, conceivably, the next Bond doesn’t have to be a continuation of any previous actor, but can still be based on Fleming’s work. Meaning this new Bond will have already had his Vesper, his Tracy, already killed Blofeld. But all done in a more modern era. That’s all assuming that’s the approach they would want to take.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited November 2022 Posts: 554
    Having just rewatched TWINE, I think Brosnan is better in it than he was in GE. The only scene where I think he loses the plot slightly is the first meeting with Renard.

    Also, Denise Richards is perfectly fine.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,134
    How technically well-executed SF’s cinematography might be, I find almost all other Bond films much more appealing to look at.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Maybe because all other Bond films are shot on film and SF was shot digitally?
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 784
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    How technically well-executed SF’s cinematography might be, I find almost all other Bond films much more appealing to look at.

    Agree. Sequencing of pictures is more important than any individual one. Which is why I love CR and QoS so much. The feel fuller somehow. Many modern films and series limit themselves.

    But it goes to show how well done certain old films were to achieve a full feel despite scarcity of shots.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2022 Posts: 3,789
    Maybe, what @GoldenGun meant is the part of Skyfall's cinematography was purely CGI (the whole Macau sequence, for example).

    Die Another Day was also similar to this, great cinematography with bombastic action scenes, but it's most fully done on CGIs.

    Unlike the other Bond films where the cinematography was naturally done, no computer effects, and therefore didn't looked fake.

    That's the thing why I really liked the cinematography of some of the classic Bond films (OHMSS, in particular), because they could create a great cinematography without cheating on it using computer generated graphics.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 7
    Having just rewatched TWINE, I think Brosnan is better in it than he was in GE. The only scene where I think he loses the plot slightly is the first meeting with Renard.

    Also, Denise Richards is perfectly fine.

    100%.

    Perhaps controversial, speaking of TWINE:
    The entire sequence in the tower with the torture chair leading up to Bond diving into the water is the best stretch of the Brosnan era.

    Love all the stuff between Bond, Elektra, Zukovsky and (briefly) M.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    Belmont wrote: »
    Having just rewatched TWINE, I think Brosnan is better in it than he was in GE. The only scene where I think he loses the plot slightly is the first meeting with Renard.

    Also, Denise Richards is perfectly fine.

    100%.

    Perhaps controversial, speaking of TWINE:
    The entire sequence in the tower with the torture chair leading up to Bond diving into the water is the best stretch of the Brosnan era.

    Love all the stuff between Bond, Elektra, Zukovsky and (briefly) M.
    Yeah, all great stuff.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,634
    Belmont wrote: »
    Having just rewatched TWINE, I think Brosnan is better in it than he was in GE. The only scene where I think he loses the plot slightly is the first meeting with Renard.

    Also, Denise Richards is perfectly fine.

    100%.

    Perhaps controversial, speaking of TWINE:
    The entire sequence in the tower with the torture chair leading up to Bond diving into the water is the best stretch of the Brosnan era.

    Love all the stuff between Bond, Elektra, Zukovsky and (briefly) M.
    Yeah, all great stuff.

    I agree. I’m a bit biased, as TWINE was the first Bond movie I saw. It did foreshadow some twists, turns, themes and storylines that the series did start using.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,649
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    How technically well-executed SF’s cinematography might be, I find almost all other Bond films much more appealing to look at.

    Agree. Sequencing of pictures is more important than any individual one. Which is why I love CR and QoS so much. The feel fuller somehow. Many modern films and series limit themselves.

    But it goes to show how well done certain old films were to achieve a full feel despite scarcity of shots.

    I agree. I think Campbell talked in one of the documentaries about kinetic action in GoldenEye and Casino Royale. One stage setting leads directly into the other, one action leads directly into another, dialogue leads into the next scene, cut on action etc. Work with momentum. The guy gets it.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 784
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,649
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.

    In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.

    Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,634
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.

    In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.

    Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.

    I’d include QOS as well. He picked Marc Forster, who didn’t care for Bond and it shows, writer’s strike or not. They wrote scenes, and either was a good writer. They admit now, but that was a sign DC wasn’t the greatest creative person in Bond. Meanwhile, PB’s saying that Paris Carver should be a past lover was a great idea. EON should have let PB have more creative control.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,649
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.

    In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.

    Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.

    I’d include QOS as well. He picked Marc Forster, who didn’t care for Bond and it shows, writer’s strike or not. They wrote scenes, and either was a good writer. They admit now, but that was a sign DC wasn’t the greatest creative person in Bond. Meanwhile, PB’s saying that Paris Carver should be a past lover was a great idea. EON should have let PB have more creative control.

    I still admire P&W's modern interpretation of CR. They are far from bad. If they could do that for every Fleming story I'd be over the moon.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,634
    LucknFate wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.

    In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.

    Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.

    I’d include QOS as well. He picked Marc Forster, who didn’t care for Bond and it shows, writer’s strike or not. They wrote scenes, and either was a good writer. They admit now, but that was a sign DC wasn’t the greatest creative person in Bond. Meanwhile, PB’s saying that Paris Carver should be a past lover was a great idea. EON should have let PB have more creative control.

    I still admire P&W's modern interpretation of CR. They are far from bad. If they could do that for every Fleming story I'd be over the moon.

    Here’s a controversial opinion from me: P & W had the best idea for QOS. More action, less art house. But with a human approach. I know I criticize them a lot but I’m thankful that they have been a part of the series. They have good IDEAS more often than not.
  • edited November 2022 Posts: 784
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.

    In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.

    Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.

    Mendes’s films have very little variation in angles and framing during conversations and totally miss the opportunity to amplify the actor performances. I would expect more from cinematic cinematographers, it felt very TV to me. (It worked in M’s apartment but otherwise it was dull). My gripes with the plot though cannot be attributed to him.

    Daniel seems to have been very hands on in CR and QoS, especially writing in the second one. I am not sure how much creative involvement he had beyond recruiting for the later films.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited November 2022 Posts: 1,649
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Funnily enough I think the action in Mendes' films is fine, and that it actually is the drama that is lacklustre.

    In both, I find a stark lack of planning/forethought. Movie barely drags itself along, so does Spectre. You can see the filmmakers searching for ideas or a story right there on screen as it's happening. Craig's couldn't give a damn attitude doesn't help me.

    Here's a controversial opinion: Craig's influence ruined SF, SP, and NTTD. Just how I feel.

    Mendes’s films have very little variation in angles and framing during conversations and totally miss the opportunity to amplify the actor performances. I would expect more from cinematic cinematographers, it felt very TV to me. My gripes with the plot though cannot be attributed to him.

    Daniel seems to have been very hands on in CR and QoS, especially writing in the second one. I am not sure how much creative involvement he had beyond recruiting for the later films.

    Well he somehow ended up with a producer credit, so he must have convinced someone he was contributing more than an actor's salary. And if he was only responsible for some recruitment, I'm not a fan of the results of Mendes, Hoytema, Newman, CJF, and Zimmer and wasn't excited about the Boyle fiasco before it was a fiasco.
  • Posts: 727
    Someone calling skyfall tv. 💀
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,789
    Someone calling skyfall tv. 💀

    Hey, it's his opinion. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.