Controversial opinions about Bond films

17374767879707

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    royale65 wrote:
    I've been racking my brains for something controversial to put on here, but alas I seem to be in the majority.

    However, I've got a controversial opinion for you -

    I wouldn't mind Marc Forster coming back..........

    Mods, please ban this member for clear trolling and generally causing me to spill a hot beverage ;-)
    Hey, he made a great film. Would I want him back before other directors like Mendes? No, but while he was here he did a good job, making a great Bond centric character study film.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Could be worse. He might have been asking for the return of Spotteswood or Tamahori :-&
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    I would like to see Forsters return, if he could get some more time development of the script and the story then i'm confident that he could make an even better film then QoS!
  • Could be worse. He might have been asking for the return of Spotteswood or Tamahori :-&

    Spottiswoode was better than Forster. Pedestrian, but no baffling decisions like the shakycam epileptic fit resembling a car chase.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Could be worse. He might have been asking for the return of Spotteswood or Tamahori :-&

    Spottiswoode was better than Forster. Pedestrian, but no baffling decisions like the shakycam epileptic fit resembling a car chase.

    Nurse, fetch my medicine!
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Could be worse. He might have been asking for the return of Spotteswood or Tamahori :-&

    Spottiswoode was better than Forster. Pedestrian, but no baffling decisions like the shakycam epileptic fit resembling a car chase.

    Spottiswoode made a movie that is as thin as a piece of paper, whilist Forster made a great movie filled with symbolism and and themes!

  • Could be worse. He might have been asking for the return of Spotteswood or Tamahori :-&

    Spottiswoode was better than Forster. Pedestrian, but no baffling decisions like the shakycam epileptic fit resembling a car chase.

    Nurse, fetch my medicine!

    It's not as if I said he was as good as Young, Campbell, or Mendes. I don't think there were any glaring, "What on Earth were you thinking?" moments like in Die Another Day or Quantum of Solace.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    I'm happy as long as we don't have to see Spottiswoode, Apted or Tamahori back in the director's chair.
  • Could be worse. He might have been asking for the return of Spotteswood or Tamahori :-&

    Spottiswoode was better than Forster. Pedestrian, but no baffling decisions like the shakycam epileptic fit resembling a car chase.

    Nurse, fetch my medicine!

    It's not as if I said he was as good as Young, Campbell, or Mendes. I don't think there were any glaring, "What on Earth were you thinking?" moments like in Die Another Day or Quantum of Solace.

    Exactly. He made a solid, fun Bond film that was perhaps a bit too OTT. I prefer him to Forster.
    MrBond wrote:
    Spottiswoode made a movie that is as thin as a piece of paper, whilist Forster made a great movie filled with symbolism and and themes!

    I'd argue that Spottiswoode made a fun action flick that does exactly what it sets out to do quite well while Forster made an arty, pretentious film that wastes good actors and good moments of drama by chucking them into a sea of badly edited action scenes.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Nah, TND was too dull and too uninspired to qualify as a "fun action flick". I feel no love behind their craft for 1997's release.
    Forster made something totally different and something that really sticks out and handles Bond with dignity!
  • Posts: 1,970
    Every Bond director>>>>>>>> Marc Forster. The guy knew nothing about Bond and made a terrible follow up to Casino Royale.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Every Bond director>>>>>>>> Marc Forster. The guy knew nothing about Bond and made a terrible follow up to Casino Royale.

    He knew Bond's history quite well, many of the choices of editing is a deliberate throwback to the 60's.
    And really, was a "CR 2.0" the real way to go in 2008? QoS is a great complement to CR, where CR takes on the long and dramatic scenes. QoS takes on the fast part just because of Bond's state of mind in the film. Forster works with the sublime details.

    And do you really prefer the stale Apted, or the inept Tamahori over Forster? Really?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    the only director I never want to see direct a Bond film again is Michael Apted :)

    I don't mind Spottiswood or Forster to return!
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited November 2013 Posts: 4,423
    I'm sorry @WillyGalore. I hope you didn't scold yourself. ;-)

    Anyway, seriously, I'd be interested to see Forster return. Imagine what he could do without a writers strike. And he wouldn't do the hyper-editing that we saw in QoS - Forster was trying to get inside of Bond's head. (well, hopefully anyway, the one caveat I had with QoS was it's editing.)

    BTW I quite liked Spottiswoode's helming of TND; I concur with @thelivingroyale. TND is fun, sleek and pacy, and there's no pretentiousness to be seen.
  • Posts: 6,396
    the only director I never want to see direct a Bond film again is Michael Apted :)

    I don't mind Spottiswood or Forster to return!

    You'd even want Tamahori back?
  • Posts: 1,970
    MrBond wrote:
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Every Bond director>>>>>>>> Marc Forster. The guy knew nothing about Bond and made a terrible follow up to Casino Royale.

    He knew Bond's history quite well, many of the choices of editing is a deliberate throwback to the 60's.
    And really, was a "CR 2.0" the real way to go in 2008? QoS is a great complement to CR, where CR takes on the long and dramatic scenes. QoS takes on the fast part just because of Bond's state of mind in the film. Forster works with the sublime details.

    And do you really prefer the stale Apted, or the inept Tamahori over Forster? Really?

    Yes because TWINE is my favorite Bond film. I much rather take those 2 directors over Forster. QOS is a piece of shit of a film IMO
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @fjdinardo, what made QoS so terrible to you?
  • edited November 2013 Posts: 12,837
    MrBond wrote:
    Nah, TND was too dull and too uninspired to qualify as a "fun action flick". I feel no love behind their craft for 1997's release.
    Forster made something totally different and something that really sticks out and handles Bond with dignity!

    How is it dull and uninspired? Please give some reasons because I think it's a blast. It's a fast paced action fest but unlike QOS it doesn't try to be anything more than that. It's slick, witty, it has tons of colourful characters (Carver, Kauffman, Wai Lin), a great score and Brosnan at his coolest. It's fun.

    If you're going to slag off TND slag off the crap story or the dodgy product placement. Don't start calling it dull because I don't think that's a criticism that holds much merit.

    "I feel no love behind their craft" I'm not even sure what you mean here.

    "Forster made something totally different and something that really sticks out and handles Bond with dignity" So QOS gains points because it's different? By that logic Rocky V is the best Rocky film. Yeah it's shit but it's so different and it really sticks out among the films!
    MrBond wrote:
    And do you really prefer the stale Apted, or the inept Tamahori over Forster? Really?

    You really prefer the crapfest DAD over the brilliant TLD? Really?

    Works both ways mate. And for the record I prefer Apted over Forster because I think Apted made the better film.
  • the only director I never want to see direct a Bond film again is Michael Apted :)

    I don't mind Spottiswood or Forster to return!

    You'd be okay with Tamahori? The man who thought the codename theory should be made canon, and who greenlighted the invisible car, the references to the first nineteen Bond movies, and every line out Jinx's mouth (not mention several from Graves, Moneypenny, and even Bond himself)?
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044

    How is it dull and uninspired? Please give some reasons because I think it's a blast. It's a fast paced action fest but unlike QOS it doesn't try to be anything more than that. It's slick, witty, it has tons of colourful characters (Carver, Kauffman, Wai Lin), a great score and Brosnan at his coolest. It's fun.

    If you're going to slag off TND slag off the crap story or the dodgy product placement. Don't start calling it dull because I don't think that's a criticism that holds much merit.

    "I feel no love behind their craft" I'm not even sure what you mean here.

    "Forster made something totally different and something that really sticks out and handles Bond with dignity" So QOS gains points because it's different? By that logic Rocky V is the best Rocky film. Yeah it's shit but it's so different and it really sticks out among the films!


    You really prefer the crapfest DAD over the brilliant TLD? Really?

    Works both ways mate. And for the record I prefer Apted over Forster because I think Apted made the better film.

    Just look at the climax on the Stealth ship, it's just uninspired action that goes on and on. It is made with one intention and one intention only, and that is to fill the criteria of an explosive climax. Nothing really falls in place there, it's just action for the sake of it and that is dull.
    I can agree that Brosnan is at his best in the film, and that TND holds some nostalgia for me because it was my first Bond-film but it is still a inferior Bond-film (and film in general) compared to QoS. Whereas QoS brings something to the table and entertains at the same time, TND brings me just a run-of-the mill Bond film and not a particular good one either.

    Well each for it's own i suppose. But a good film in my opinion shouldn't just entertain when you're watching the film it should continue to tickle your mind long after you switched it off. And some films does that when being different, QoS is very different both to it's immediate predecessor and to the previous 21 films. So yes, that is a merit.

    TLD is overall more "Fleming-esqe" and Dalton is better than Brosnan but i find more joy in some of the parts in DAD.
    I'm flattered that you're remembers my opinion about those two films!

  • edited November 2013 Posts: 1,970
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @fjdinardo, what made QoS so terrible to you?

    one it was too fast of a film I really couldn't keep up with much of that story, so many camera angles, I thought the villain was boring, and I really didn't understand much of the story other then Bonds revenge for Vesper. I thought it could have been much better. But it is really hard to follow up CR
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited November 2013 Posts: 28,694
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @fjdinardo, what made QoS so terrible to you?

    one it was too fast of a film I really couldn't keep up with much of that story, so many camera angles, I thought the villain was boring, and I really didn't understand much of the story other then Bonds revenge for Vesper. I thought it could have been much better. But it is really hard to follow up CR
    Do realize though that sometimes it isn't the film's fault you don't understand it. Plus, may I interject that QoS really had no revenge plot. Bond had anger over Vesper's death and dealings with Quantum, but never acted with reckless and aggressive force on it. In fact, Bond was one of the only people with his stuff together in that film, driven and dutiful as always, showing M he was worthy of his 00 status. Like he said to Camille in the car, "I don't think the dead care about vengeance," and then later with Yusef in the apartment, when he states "She (Vesper) wouldn't want me to (kill him)." Through Camille and his own feelings over the course of the film regarding the deaths of Vesper and Mathis, Bond learns just how futile revenge is. It can't take the pain away, nor can it bring back those you love. It's a big turning point in the development of his character, and why the film is so stellar. Dan sells it all the way home.
  • Posts: 1,970
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @fjdinardo, what made QoS so terrible to you?

    one it was too fast of a film I really couldn't keep up with much of that story, so many camera angles, I thought the villain was boring, and I really didn't understand much of the story other then Bonds revenge for Vesper. I thought it could have been much better. But it is really hard to follow up CR
    Do realize though that sometimes it isn't the film's fault you don't understand it. Plus, may I interject that QoS really had no revenge plot. Bond had anger over Vesper's death and dealings with Quantum, but never acted with reckless and aggressive force on it. In fact, Bond was one of the only people with his stuff together in that film, driven and dutiful as always, showing M he was worthy of his 00 status. Like he said to Camille in the car, "I don't think the dead care about vengeance," and then later with Yusef in the apartment, when he states "She (Vesper) wouldn't want me to (kill him)." Through Camille and his own feelings over the course of the film regarding the deaths of Vesper and Mathis, Bond learns just how futile revenge is. It can't take the pain away, nor can it bring back those you love. It's a big turning point in the development of his character, and why the film is so stellar. Dan sells it all the way home.
    U make good points but im sorry i didnt like the film. IMO its the worst one
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2013 Posts: 6,304
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @fjdinardo, what made QoS so terrible to you?

    one it was too fast of a film I really couldn't keep up with much of that story, so many camera angles, I thought the villain was boring, and I really didn't understand much of the story other then Bonds revenge for Vesper. I thought it could have been much better. But it is really hard to follow up CR
    Do realize though that sometimes it isn't the film's fault you don't understand it. Plus, may I interject that QoS really had no revenge plot. Bond had anger over Vesper's death and dealings with Quantum, but never acted with reckless and aggressive force on it. In fact, Bond was one of the only people with his stuff together in that film, driven and dutiful as always, showing M he was worthy of his 00 status. Like he said to Camille in the car, "I don't think the dead care about vengeance," and then later with Yusef in the apartment, when he states "She (Vesper) wouldn't want me to (kill him)." Through Camille and his own feelings over the course of the film regarding the deaths of Vesper and Mathis, Bond learns just how futile revenge is. It can't take the pain away, nor can it bring back those you love. It's a big turning point in the development of his character, and why the film is so stellar. Dan sells it all the way home.
    I basically agree with you and think the film (although seriously flawed) is perhaps the most misunderstood in the series. It aims higher than most Bond films that seem to be on autopilot and while it often stumbles, it occasionally soars (the last two scenes, plus the opera, are among the best in the series). But it really needed about twenty more minutes in Bolivia to flesh out Bond, the CIA, and Greene's story.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @fjdinardo, it's completely fine that you don't like it - I love it, you hate it, that's how opinions work - but you can't fault the film just because you didn't understand the plot when the plot is easily described.
  • I suppose I'll chime in. I think Forster did a pretty solid job given the script issues and such. However, I think Casino Royale set up a theoretically better movie than what Quantum of Solace is, if that makes sense. It doesn't quite live up to what Casino sets it up to be.

    Overall I think QoS is under-appreciated by many. Craig is amazing, Mathis is one of the best allies ever, and overall it's a pretty good Bond movie. However, I don't think Forster has complete a grasp of the character (cinematic or Fleming). There wasn't any lightness in QoS, and a lot of Bond films have that juxtaposition of "light and heavy." Anways, yeah, QOS is great.

    However, I read a few remarks about Spottiswoode and I'll defend him as well. TND is SUCH pure FUN. I think it's a great action flick and even though it IS a stock and formulaic Bond movie it still feels inspired. Brosnan kills it here and is at his "coolest" and the characters are a blast.
  • Posts: 1,970
    Heres one. Thunderball is better than From Russia with Love
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2013 Posts: 9,117
    I suppose I'll chime in. I think Forster did a pretty solid job given the script issues and such. However, I think Casino Royale set up a theoretically better movie than what Quantum of Solace is, if that makes sense. It doesn't quite live up to what Casino sets it up to be.

    Overall I think QoS is under-appreciated by many. Craig is amazing, Mathis is one of the best allies ever, and overall it's a pretty good Bond movie. However, I don't think Forster has complete a grasp of the character (cinematic or Fleming). There wasn't any lightness in QoS, and a lot of Bond films have that juxtaposition of "light and heavy." Anways, yeah, QOS is great.

    However, I read a few remarks about Spottiswoode and I'll defend him as well. TND is SUCH pure FUN. I think it's a great action flick and even though it IS a stock and formulaic Bond movie it still feels inspired. Brosnan kills it here and is at his "coolest" and the characters are a blast.

    Well the script wasn't to blame for the editing that rendered the PTS and boat chase (just how does Bond make that boat flip again? Even taking it frame by frame it's not clear) practically unwatchable was it?

    And I suggest that you go and check out Calvindyson's YouTube review of QOS where he absolutely destroys Forster (with good reason) over what should be one of the key scenes when Mitchell tries to kill M.

    Yes the QOS script was shaky but in the hands of someone else it could still have been serviceable. The scenes with Mathis are well handled as is the last scene in the car with Camille but other than that....

    And before anyone mentions the brilliance of the opera scene - well how about this for controversial - it's merely ok. Far from the cinematic masterpiece it's made out to be. I like the way Dan nicks a tux etc but then there's nothing else we haven't seen before. A blatant ripoff of Sandor and a pretentiously shot little shoot out.

    In the end QOS is such a let down because it failed to build on the setup in CR. Viewed on its own its a passable Bond film - probably just in the bottom half - but if you watch them back to back it just feels like you watching a special edition of CR with a few extra scenes tagged on.

    I think also that the comparisons between Forster and Spottiswoode are particularly pertinent given that both films were shot on punishing schedules with scripts that we're being written as they went along.

    But where Spottiswoode does a sterling job of holding the whole thing together and delivering a solid, no frills, does-what-it-says-on-the-tin classic Bond film (only letting things slip in the dull finale) Forster makes an absolute hash of things.

    Lesson to be taken is that an auteur is a risk and sometimes a journeyman is what you need to bring the thing in on budget and on schedule. The other lesson is never start principal photography without a finished script FFS.
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Heres one. Thunderball is better than From Russia with Love

    That's a load of bollocks on pretty much every level. In fact I can't think of a single criteria in which TB beats FRWL - unless you count being sent to sleep as a plus?
  • Posts: 6,396
    fjdinardo wrote:
    Heres one. Thunderball is better than From Russia with Love

    It just isn't.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I enjoy TB but its certainly NOT better than FRWL.
Sign In or Register to comment.