Controversial opinions about Bond films

1710711712713714716»

Comments

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 15 Posts: 3,889
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The montage is ok. I guess it’s functional and at least the music over it is wonderful. But I can understand it’s very ‘telling not showing’ and isn’t the best storytelling.

    To be honest, when the romance of Bond and Tracy are taken into context, there's nothing much showing to it: Tracy was only a catalyst to reinvigorate Bond to get back into the game, kinda like his energizer or booster to inspire him to go back to work, a motivation, but not definitely a romance thing, nothing there was romantic: Bond found her, they have sex, then they've used each other: Bond used her as an inspiration to enthusiasts himself in his work, Tracy used him to make better of herself and move on, then wedding and bang, she's killed, that's how I can describe Bond and Tracy's relationship.

    It's not a believable romance, especially comparing it to likes of his relationship with Vesper, Tiffany, Vivienne, and Gala Brand which are more sincere in comparison.

    The Montage was just right for me.

    It works in the films as the books already had Bond in love.

    The explanation you provided shows how Bond and Tracy work for each other, which is a crucial tenet of any relationship.

    Audiences didn't like it and revelled in the Lazenby/Rigg tabloid rift. They got their fill with Plenty O'Toole and Tiffany Case in DAF. Get proper Bond Connery back. Vapid wheezes whose absence of depth makes one wonder if they were even shallow.

    Yes, but the film made it better than the book (the OHMSS romance in the book didn't worked), the film improved upon it, the film made the impossible, possible of the believability of Bond and Tracy relationship, through developing Bond and Tracy's love story, by lending more time to have each other which the book failed to provide.

    I agree, I'm actually tired of these OHMSS arguments and it's been going on for years, those are the same old complaints, for a Bond film, It's the best love story that we have.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 109
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    The montage is ok. I guess it’s functional and at least the music over it is wonderful. But I can understand it’s very ‘telling not showing’ and isn’t the best storytelling.

    To be honest, when the romance of Bond and Tracy are taken into context, there's nothing much showing to it: Tracy was only a catalyst to reinvigorate Bond to get back into the game, kinda like his energizer or booster to inspire him to go back to work, a motivation, but not definitely a romance thing, nothing there was romantic: Bond found her, they have sex, then they've used each other: Bond used her as an inspiration to enthusiasts himself in his work, Tracy used him to make better of herself and move on, then wedding and bang, she's killed, that's how I can describe Bond and Tracy's relationship.

    It's not a believable romance, especially comparing it to likes of his relationship with Vesper, Tiffany, Vivienne, and Gala Brand which are more sincere in comparison.

    The Montage was just right for me.

    It works in the films as the books already had Bond in love.

    The explanation you provided shows how Bond and Tracy work for each other, which is a crucial tenet of any relationship.

    Audiences didn't like it and revelled in the Lazenby/Rigg tabloid rift. They got their fill with Plenty O'Toole and Tiffany Case in DAF. Get proper Bond Connery back. Vapid wheezes whose absence of depth makes one wonder if they were even shallow.

    Yes, but the film made it better than the book (the OHMSS romance in the book didn't worked), the film improved upon it, the film made the impossible, possible of the believability of Bond and Tracy relationship, through developing Bond and Tracy's love story, by lending more time to have each other which the book failed to provide.

    I agree, I'm actually tired of these OHMSS arguments and it's been going on for years, those are the same old complaints, for a Bond film, It's the best love story that we have.

    Aye, the book was fairly terrible. Even the final assault on Blofeld's lair was told in passing.

    Not the first, nor the last, occasion in which the film sorted out Fleming's mess.

  • SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I would say the point of Tania is for her to be entirely vulnerable and inexperienced. She works for the MGB sure, but only as a cipher clerk and probably any title comes from the secrecy of work she must deal with rather than actual experience with danger.

    She's ended up caught up in the nasty world of SMERSH and is scared by the nasty woman at it's head and nasty job that they do. Ultimately that's why SPECTRE/SMERSH choose her; she's innocent in a seductive way and they use that to appeal to Bond. I don't think the story works with a more world-weary Tania, because at that point she wouldn't believe all her orders, question some of the logic, etc.

    Completely agree on the dubbing though. I don't Van der Zyl did Tania (Wiki says Barbara Jefford), but there's still points where a German accent shines through more than a Russian one.

    Is that the case in the book? Because what I mean is like Bond, the professionalism, I've read the book many months ago, but my interpretation of her actions there was seemed to be doing what she's asked to do as if being professional, I don't know, maybe there's a still a hint of vulnerability, but also professionalism that like Bond or Anya, she's just doing what she's asked to do because of her job, she's made to act that way, but she's part of the system, she knew it all well, and that's where her loyalty lies.

    Maybe I'm wrong with my interpretation.

    But in the film for me, she acted more like a fish out of the water in the situation, not as a hired person inside the business, that's just for me.

    She acted like she's deceived in the film, in the book, I've felt like although she fell in love with Bond, there's still a baggage within her that she belongs in where she's working in which is the MGB, and she's sent to Consulate (she could do the same like in the film, but in the book, she's been sent there for further investigation, further highlighting what she have in store when it comes to her connection with her agency and SMERSH), there's still a sense of Professionalism, she's more than a pawn, she's sent as a foil, just like how Bond are being sent against his enemies and seduce the women.

    That's my reading of Tatiana's role in the book, Ian Fleming made that in reference when he's interviewed about the role of women in Espionage, particularly, Mata Hari.

    I mean I think her reaction to be called by SMERSH shows her complete lack of composure in the spy-game. She questions all her jokes, and nearly throws a spoon out of a window and then panicked decides to see her fate. Fleming says she's just in the English translation department. Klebb thinks lowly of her, as a "silly chit of a girl." And the plan was to kill her, so clearly they didn't really think much of her anyway. Bond says she doesn't seem much like a Russian spy and is too gay to be anything like an operative

    A large motivation of hers is fear as well. Her lovers and family are threatened if she doesn't go through instructions. She thinks if she confesses anything to Bond she'll be thrown off the train and she'll lose both Bond and be punished by Moscow. Instead if she complies she naively thinks she'll get the best of both worlds: Bond will love her and they'll in England together and she'll be able to be a spy. She doesn't think her betrayal of Bond is particularly important and states that she won't think he'll care.

    I think that's probably the one thing Bianchi nailed the most, a beautiful innocence opposite Bond.
  • edited April 15 Posts: 1,811
    Think TB is perhaps too soon. Some of its effects are frankly awful, whereas its pacing suffers. Plus, Connery looks bored with it all. Goldfinger demanded 007 veer off into spectacle, so it's not surprising YOLT was next.

    OHMSS is bettered only by FRWL, in my book.

    OHMSS has the same poor effects and it has Lazenby too. Or a dubbed Lazenby...

    The dubbed Lazenby killed the movie IMO. This is not a gritty thriller. I can't pretend it is any longer.

    And the purple casino is horrible. Even movies from the 70s have better taste :D

    I mean, I like the movie but it is not perfect. I think it's a bit overrated nowadays.

    The dubbed Lazenby isn't enough to sink the film. Think his performance was good. Portrayed a more vulnerable Bond (he looks genuinely terrified of Blofeld's goons) and it was needed in this type of film. Never saw it as a 'gritty thriller', more the correct blend of spectacle/grit with a serious romance permeating it.

    Purple casino, though, you are right about. Even Prince wouldn't gamble there. Bleugh.

    The movie doesn't sink but it doesn't exactly help. There are many flaws in other films that I am willing to forgive before this one.

    I'd rather "be bored" by TB than watch Lazenby dubbed. ;)
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 109
    Think TB is perhaps too soon. Some of its effects are frankly awful, whereas its pacing suffers. Plus, Connery looks bored with it all. Goldfinger demanded 007 veer off into spectacle, so it's not surprising YOLT was next.

    OHMSS is bettered only by FRWL, in my book.

    OHMSS has the same poor effects and it has Lazenby too. Or a dubbed Lazenby...

    The dubbed Lazenby killed the movie IMO. This is not a gritty thriller. I can't pretend it is any longer.

    And the purple casino is horrible. Even movies from the 70s have better taste :D

    I mean, I like the movie but it is not perfect. I think it's a bit overrated nowadays.

    The dubbed Lazenby isn't enough to sink the film. Think his performance was good. Portrayed a more vulnerable Bond (he looks genuinely terrified of Blofeld's goons) and it was needed in this type of film. Never saw it as a 'gritty thriller', more the correct blend of spectacle/grit with a serious romance permeating it.

    Purple casino, though, you are right about. Even Prince wouldn't gamble there. Bleugh.

    The movie doesn't sink but it doesn't exactly help. There are many flaws in other films that I am willing to forgive before this one.

    I'd rather "be bored" by TB than watch Lazenby dubbed. ;)

    Ah, fair enough, chief
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 15 Posts: 3,889
    Think TB is perhaps too soon. Some of its effects are frankly awful, whereas its pacing suffers. Plus, Connery looks bored with it all. Goldfinger demanded 007 veer off into spectacle, so it's not surprising YOLT was next.

    OHMSS is bettered only by FRWL, in my book.

    OHMSS has the same poor effects and it has Lazenby too. Or a dubbed Lazenby...

    The dubbed Lazenby killed the movie IMO. This is not a gritty thriller. I can't pretend it is any longer.

    And the purple casino is horrible. Even movies from the 70s have better taste :D

    I mean, I like the movie but it is not perfect. I think it's a bit overrated nowadays.

    The dubbed Lazenby isn't enough to sink the film. Think his performance was good. Portrayed a more vulnerable Bond (he looks genuinely terrified of Blofeld's goons) and it was needed in this type of film. Never saw it as a 'gritty thriller', more the correct blend of spectacle/grit with a serious romance permeating it.

    Purple casino, though, you are right about. Even Prince wouldn't gamble there. Bleugh.

    The movie doesn't sink but it doesn't exactly help. There are many flaws in other films that I am willing to forgive before this one.

    I'd rather "be bored" by TB than watch Lazenby dubbed. ;)

    Your opinion, but put in my mind that Lazenby was not the only actor in the series to be dubbed, and again, fairly reasonable if he's under a disguise of someone else, in this case, Sir Hillary Bray, he went through extensive training and research to copy Bray to make himself unrecognizable that in return, nearly succeeded, when Blofeld didn't recognized him.
    But it's your perspective and opinion, after all, the way we look at these films were subjective.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I would say the point of Tania is for her to be entirely vulnerable and inexperienced. She works for the MGB sure, but only as a cipher clerk and probably any title comes from the secrecy of work she must deal with rather than actual experience with danger.

    She's ended up caught up in the nasty world of SMERSH and is scared by the nasty woman at it's head and nasty job that they do. Ultimately that's why SPECTRE/SMERSH choose her; she's innocent in a seductive way and they use that to appeal to Bond. I don't think the story works with a more world-weary Tania, because at that point she wouldn't believe all her orders, question some of the logic, etc.

    Completely agree on the dubbing though. I don't Van der Zyl did Tania (Wiki says Barbara Jefford), but there's still points where a German accent shines through more than a Russian one.

    Is that the case in the book? Because what I mean is like Bond, the professionalism, I've read the book many months ago, but my interpretation of her actions there was seemed to be doing what she's asked to do as if being professional, I don't know, maybe there's a still a hint of vulnerability, but also professionalism that like Bond or Anya, she's just doing what she's asked to do because of her job, she's made to act that way, but she's part of the system, she knew it all well, and that's where her loyalty lies.

    Maybe I'm wrong with my interpretation.

    But in the film for me, she acted more like a fish out of the water in the situation, not as a hired person inside the business, that's just for me.

    She acted like she's deceived in the film, in the book, I've felt like although she fell in love with Bond, there's still a baggage within her that she belongs in where she's working in which is the MGB, and she's sent to Consulate (she could do the same like in the film, but in the book, she's been sent there for further investigation, further highlighting what she have in store when it comes to her connection with her agency and SMERSH), there's still a sense of Professionalism, she's more than a pawn, she's sent as a foil, just like how Bond are being sent against his enemies and seduce the women.

    That's my reading of Tatiana's role in the book, Ian Fleming made that in reference when he's interviewed about the role of women in Espionage, particularly, Mata Hari.

    I mean I think her reaction to be called by SMERSH shows her complete lack of composure in the spy-game. She questions all her jokes, and nearly throws a spoon out of a window and then panicked decides to see her fate. Fleming says she's just in the English translation department. Klebb thinks lowly of her, as a "silly chit of a girl." And the plan was to kill her, so clearly they didn't really think much of her anyway. Bond says she doesn't seem much like a Russian spy and is too gay to be anything like an operative

    A large motivation of hers is fear as well. Her lovers and family are threatened if she doesn't go through instructions. She thinks if she confesses anything to Bond she'll be thrown off the train and she'll lose both Bond and be punished by Moscow. Instead if she complies she naively thinks she'll get the best of both worlds: Bond will love her and they'll in England together and she'll be able to be a spy. She doesn't think her betrayal of Bond is particularly important and states that she won't think he'll care.

    I think that's probably the one thing Bianchi nailed the most, a beautiful innocence opposite Bond.

    Thank you for further explanation 😊.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,536
    OHMSS is a prime example of a film being excellent in spite of its weak leading star. And to be fair, Lazenby is good for a novice actor. Not ready for leading, but he had something. Might have even grown in the part if he didn’t quit. Shame that he shot himself in the foot.

    I always did think a better film for Lazenby would have been LALD. It’s essentially a chase movie, and would have benefitted his physicality more than OHMSS.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,754
    I always did think a better film for Lazenby would have been LALD. It’s essentially a chase movie, and would have benefitted his physicality more than OHMSS.

    Maybe, but I did recently watch LALD quite soon after OHMSS, and it really is striking just how much better Roger is when you put them alongside each other. In fact, I'd actually say that Lazenby would fare worse in LALD because it's quite small and Bond feels even more front and centre of it to me.

    Watching this scene in his hotel room with Rosie I was struck by just how much Roger is doing: he's being playful and half winking at the camera, he's being suspicious, he's being a spy, we're laughing with him at times, he's the butt of the joke at other times too. I just imagine George's rather disconnected, charisma-free presence in this and the whole thing dies.


  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,536
    Part of it is the way Mankiewicz wrote for Moore. He knew that actor’s strengths and wrote to them.
Sign In or Register to comment.