Controversial opinions about Bond films

18182848687707

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm just calling it as I see it. After The Bourne Identity, the then current Bond looked like a drunken dad trying to dance at a wedding. So EON went and did a bit of kneading by jamming Bond into the Bourne mould, removing some of the aspects that set Bond apart from other genre characters in the process.

    It's a fair point. Craig-Bond is clearly a reaction to the critical success of Bourne and I think anyone denying this is living in Cloud cuckoo land. While I don't hate the recent films at all, I can see where you're coming from, and I would agree to some extent that there were elements lost during the transition.

    Was it a good move though? Sure. I don't think they could have continued along their trajectory post 2002. However, I think recently they've managed to shake off the Bourne comparison and look to be heading towards a more Bondian future, while the Bourne films seem to be fading fast. Sometimes to beat them, you first have to join them.

    There are two key rules to making a great Bond picture. The first is 'when in doubt, go back to Fleming' and the other is 'make sure you put the money up on screen'. The second needs addressing in B24. If Chris Nolan can location hop around the world, so can James Bond. Let's get a sense of grandiosity and awe back into the franchise.
  • RC7 wrote:
    There are two key rules to making a great Bond picture. The first is 'when in doubt, go back to Fleming' and the other is 'make sure you put the money up on screen'. The second needs addressing in B24. If Chris Nolan can location hop around the world, so can James Bond. Let's get a sense of grandiosity and awe back into the franchise.

    That's one of my main complaints about the rebooted series. other than CR, we haven't had a great lineup of well-used locations since TND.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 2,483
    SaintMark wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    I think license to Kill is seriously underrated.

    I think it gets far too much credit as it is. There is nothing special about this movie that makes it a 007 movie. The year it got released had less gnereic actioners than LTK.
    And Miami Vice had done the drugsangle better, more stylish and better camerawork and music.

    It is a Bond movie to the bone. First, it's got this character called James Bond in it, and the character is played as a fellow named Ian Fleming would have liked. Second, the film has a larger-than-life, iguana-petting villain, who has a nefarious plan of hemispheric if not global scope. Third, there are two lovelies and a cracking good casino sequence that vibrates with cool and menace. Fourth, there is a guy named Dario who is a classic Bondian henchman. Fifth, the action in this film is fully up to Bond standards and puts the vast majority of actioner action in the dirt. Fifth, the Benign Bizarre, perhaps THE Bondian trait, is fully present. And sixth, classically sly Bondian humor pops up with nice regularity. The notion that LTK is a déclassé, generic actioner is shopworn tosh.
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    My controversial opinion:
    I think the Q scenes in LTK were mostly a mistake. They undermine the serious tone that the film tries to keep going. It's never a good thing to have Bond go out on a serious vendetta using... explosive toothpaste? Being helped by Q dressed as a local peasant mopping the street with a broomstick with a hidden mike? As if LTK's universe accidentally collided with that of CR67. I love LTK, minus the Q scenes.

    I love the Q scenes. It's good to see him and Bond spend time with each other and have a non-adversarial relationship, and I also like that it keeps us within the Bond universe. That's the thing, to me, about Licence to Kill. It takes place in a different, grittier sort of place, but it's still definitely identifiable as the Bond universe.

    That's actually an interesting parallel between Licence to Kill and Skyfall. LTK keeps the structure of Bond, but it changes the people and location, whereas SF changes the structure but keeps the same kinds of people and locations.

    Couldn't agree more with your first paragraph. As to SF changing the structure of Bond films, I'd need to see your evidence.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It is a Bond movie to the bone. First, it's got this character called James Bond in it, and the character is played as a fellow named Ian Fleming would have liked. Second, the film has a larger-than-life, iguana-petting villain, who has a nefarious plan of hemispheric if not global scope. Third, there are two lovelies and a cracking good casino sequence that vibrates with cool and menace. Fourth, there is a guy named Dario who is a classic Bondian henchman. Fifth, the action in this film is fully up to Bond standards and puts the vast majority of actioner action in the dirt. Fifth, the Benign Bizarre, perhaps THE Bondian trait, is fully present. And sixth, classically sly Bondian humor pops up with nice regularity. The notion that LTK is a déclassé, generic actioner is shopworn tosh.

    My only gripe is that I'd have liked the contrast of a European/Asian location to give some variety. As there is no call for it in the narrative it stands as a minor niggle and one that, in all honesty, doesn't harm my enjoyment of the movie. I think the finale is one of the best in the entire canon and makes most 80's action flicks look laughable by comparison.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 11,189
    I'm just calling it as I see it. After The Bourne Identity, the then current Bond looked like a drunken dad trying to dance at a wedding. So EON went and did a bit of kneading by jamming Bond into the Bourne mould, removing some of the aspects that set Bond apart from other genre characters in the process.

    Kind of ironic considering Brosnan actually DOES this in Mamma Mia and Love is all You Need.

    Surely Bourne was influenced by Bond. Both are "tools" operating fo the government, both are somewhat anonymous, both have the same initials and both have suffered memory loss after being pulled from the water.

    True Bond does go into Bourne territory but is it really any worse than when it imitated Star Wars?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Now that's the controversy I think we're all looking to discuss.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.
  • RC7 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.

    Quite right. Quite right indeed. I would only add that cinematic Bond is imbued by Ian Fleming's genius. Fleming created a thoughtworld, much like Tolkien and Doyle's, and that thoughtworld is timeless because it plays upon many innate human longings like the strings of a harp. That timelessness has been more or less successfully transposed to the silver screen.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.

    Quite right. Quite right indeed. I would only add that cinematic Bond is imbued by Ian Fleming's genius. Fleming created a thoughtworld, much like Tolkien and Doyle's, and that thoughtworld is timeless because it plays upon many innate human longings like the strings of a harp. That timelessness has been more or less successfully transposed to the silver screen.

    Really well put.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Some of the films have been very average. A few of the films have been extremely poor. But in no way could you reasonably describe the series as a whole as being "mediocre". As @Creasy47 puts it so well, mediocrity couldn't survive this length of time.
  • RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.

    Quite right. Quite right indeed. I would only add that cinematic Bond is imbued by Ian Fleming's genius. Fleming created a thoughtworld, much like Tolkien and Doyle's, and that thoughtworld is timeless because it plays upon many innate human longings like the strings of a harp. That timelessness has been more or less successfully transposed to the silver screen.

    Really well put.

    Perhaps, but nevertheless wrong. The cinematic Bond is so much more in just about any quality you care to name (especially when it comes to humor and cleverness/education) and while I also would be intrigued by a periodical Bond movie sticking close to the books, I am absolutely certain that the series wouldn't have survived the 60ies if they had just filmed the novels faithfully without "enlarging" Bonds character.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Some of the films have been very average. A few of the films have been extremely poor. But in no way could you reasonably describe the series as a whole as being "mediocre". As @Creasy47 puts it so well, mediocrity couldn't survive this length of time.

    I didn't say it, but it's still true: 50 years on, SF was the most successful Bond film, and it wouldn't have made such achievements if the entirety of it was mediocre.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 11,189
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Perhaps you're better off saying "a lot of the series is quite mediocre".

    I see your point though. Even as a Bond fan I admit that many of the films are fairly average and only well regarded because they are part of a larger, iconic series.

    I think using the word "genius" in relation to Bond is pushing it though. Even Fleming knew that his books were, essentially, throw-away nonsence. Remember he himself described them as "high-flown, romanticised charicatures" not to be taken TOO seriously.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.

    Quite right. Quite right indeed. I would only add that cinematic Bond is imbued by Ian Fleming's genius. Fleming created a thoughtworld, much like Tolkien and Doyle's, and that thoughtworld is timeless because it plays upon many innate human longings like the strings of a harp. That timelessness has been more or less successfully transposed to the silver screen.

    Really well put.

    Perhaps, but nevertheless wrong. The cinematic Bond is so much more in just about any quality you care to name (especially when it comes to humor and cleverness/education) and while I also would be intrigued by a periodical Bond movie sticking close to the books, I am absolutely certain that the series wouldn't have survived the 60ies if they had just filmed the novels faithfully without "enlarging" Bonds character.

    I think you absolutely miss the point of Khan's post.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Instead of "the whole series is mediocre" (this series gave us at least three of the best movies ever made) my opinion is that "especially when you consider that this is my favourite film series, a significant portion of said films is rather poor"; of the 23 films, there are nine I consider to be between "kinda bad" and "among the worst films ever made" and only fourteen that range from "good" to "among the best films ever made".
  • Matt_Helm wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.

    Quite right. Quite right indeed. I would only add that cinematic Bond is imbued by Ian Fleming's genius. Fleming created a thoughtworld, much like Tolkien and Doyle's, and that thoughtworld is timeless because it plays upon many innate human longings like the strings of a harp. That timelessness has been more or less successfully transposed to the silver screen.

    Really well put.

    Perhaps, but nevertheless wrong. The cinematic Bond is so much more in just about any quality you care to name (especially when it comes to humor and cleverness/education) and while I also would be intrigued by a periodical Bond movie sticking close to the books, I am absolutely certain that the series wouldn't have survived the 60ies if they had just filmed the novels faithfully without "enlarging" Bonds character.

    Where to begin. Well, to start, and duly noting my deep admiration for cinematic Bond, to say the films are more clever than Fleming's novels is laughable. But perhaps the word "more" is the key to your conception, because, indeed, the films do provide more humor. But quantity is not the same as quality. And on the latter score, the novels generally make a meal of the films. As to your second point, I would argue the very opposite. To wit, had Cubby and Saltzman not hewed closely and accurately to Fleming's conception, the Bond films never would have made it out of the sixties.

  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    I think license to Kill is seriously underrated.

    I think it gets far too much credit as it is. There is nothing special about this movie that makes it a 007 movie. The year it got released had less gnereic actioners than LTK.
    And Miami Vice had done the drugsangle better, more stylish and better camerawork and music.

    It is a Bond movie to the bone. First, it's got this character called James Bond in it, and the character is played as a fellow named Ian Fleming would have liked. Second, the film has a larger-than-life, iguana-petting villain, who has a nefarious plan of hemispheric if not global scope. Third, there are two lovelies and a cracking good casino sequence that vibrates with cool and menace. Fourth, there is a guy named Dario who is a classic Bondian henchman. Fifth, the action in this film is fully up to Bond standards and puts the vast majority of actioner action in the dirt. Fifth, the Benign Bizarre, perhaps THE Bondian trait, is fully present. And sixth, classically sly Bondian humor pops up with nice regularity. The notion that LTK is a déclassé, generic actioner is shopworn tosh.

    For me the movie is a reaction on Miami Vice the tv series that did change how television was made, the episodes often looked like movies.
    The baddie from LTK nothing that special, the whole club was kind of generic and the women were allright. The leading actor was the one factor that did weaken the formula, a great guy playing a baddie poor leading man material. And time has proven me right there.
    The reason LTK did so poor was that it did not improve on anything Miami Vice had done before. It kind of did a poor mans copy on a very popular series that was better looking and more stylish than anything this latest 007 outing had to offer. It had some nice actionscenes but they added little to the grand total result of an otherwise mediocre movie that proved that perhaps 007's time was up.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Instead of "the whole series is mediocre" (this series gave us at least three of the best movies ever made) my opinion is that "especially when you consider that this is my favourite film series, a significant portion of said films is rather poor"; of the 23 films, there are nine I consider to be between "kinda bad" and "among the worst films ever made" and only fourteen that range from "good" to "among the best films ever made".

    You consider 'nine' of the Bond films amongst the worst films ever made? There's controversial and there's bat-shit insane.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 2,483
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    You know, not so very long ago I would have agreed with this. There was a period of several years where practically the only films I watched were Bond films, and I began to suspect that I was idiosyncratically indulging in a nostalgic guilty pleasure that was probably inferior to the general run of cinema outside of Bond. But over the past year or so I've been watching numerous non-Bond films and the experience has actually left me deeply impressed with the overall quality of the Bond films. I would argue that even most of the sillier Bond entries are better made and more entertaining than most movies made down through the decades.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Some of the films have been very average. A few of the films have been extremely poor. But in no way could you reasonably describe the series as a whole as being "mediocre". As @Creasy47 puts it so well, mediocrity couldn't survive this length of time.

    I didn't say it, but it's still true: 50 years on, SF was the most successful Bond film, and it wouldn't have made such achievements if the entirety of it was mediocre.

    Sorry, I meant @RC7. I must still be thinking about pants parties @Creasy ;-)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @WillyGalore, haha, I think you were. The party...the party in the pants...
  • doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    If I might ask, why are you here with 3,561 posts primarily discussing the Bond series? While logic tells us that half the films are below average, a series can't survive for over 0 years and 23 (soon to be 24), by being quite mediocre, as @RC7 said. The '60's movies were some of the biggest hits the cinema had ever seen and helped change the culture and cinema. I admit that you'd have a stronger case if you had just meant the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when the series was more reactive, but even then there were some quite excellent movies. The Spy Who Loved Me, the Daltons, and GoldenEye stand out for their ability to capture the spirit of the series and at the same time play with the audience's expectations.

    The Craig years, while undoubtedly influenced by Bourne and the weaknesses of Brosnan's tenure, have still forged ahead to a degree not seen since Connery, and been for the most part very successful. Quantum of Solace was very mixed bag, but it was hurt by the writer's strike (and at times its director), and is not as good an example as Casino Royale and Skyfall, both of which had more time and attention and turned out to be top-flight entries into the series.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2013 Posts: 17,800
    When I make lists of my favourite films, I'll admit only one Bond movie makes it every time (TLD).
    I get the whole greater than the sum of the parts thing argument. Like, what's The Empire Strikes Back on its own without the other films? Bond's cinematic mystique lies in no single entry.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    RC7 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Here's one, the Bond series as a whole is quite mediocre.

    Controversial, but not true. Mediocrity cannot endure. Styles of music go out of fashion because supply cannot meet demand and the quality of the product is inevitably diminished, leading to a base line of mediocrity. Same goes for film genres, everything ends up reaching critical mass. Bond stands out as being able to transcend these pitfalls. It's had its ups and downs but as a whole, the product is one that draws people back time after time. People will find solace in familiarity, but not mediocrity.

    Excellent summation, @RC7. A franchise that has lasted half a century and is now as strong as ever is hardly a mediocre property by any stretch of the imagination.
  • Posts: 2,402
    RC7 wrote:
    Instead of "the whole series is mediocre" (this series gave us at least three of the best movies ever made) my opinion is that "especially when you consider that this is my favourite film series, a significant portion of said films is rather poor"; of the 23 films, there are nine I consider to be between "kinda bad" and "among the worst films ever made" and only fourteen that range from "good" to "among the best films ever made".

    You consider 'nine' of the Bond films amongst the worst films ever made? There's controversial and there's bat-shit insane.

    Or read my post properly? I said nine RANGE from "kinda bad" (e.g. Goldfinger) to "among the worst films ever made" (e.g. AVTAK, DAD).
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2013 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote:
    Instead of "the whole series is mediocre" (this series gave us at least three of the best movies ever made) my opinion is that "especially when you consider that this is my favourite film series, a significant portion of said films is rather poor"; of the 23 films, there are nine I consider to be between "kinda bad" and "among the worst films ever made" and only fourteen that range from "good" to "among the best films ever made".

    You consider 'nine' of the Bond films amongst the worst films ever made? There's controversial and there's bat-shit insane.

    Or read my post properly? I said nine RANGE from "kinda bad" (e.g. Goldfinger) to "among the worst films ever made" (e.g. AVTAK, DAD).

    You're still talking out of your arse though. GF is nowhere near being a 'kinda bad' movie, and AVTAK and DAD are certainly nowhere near being the worst films ever made. Have you ever seen 'Freddie Got Fingered', 'Catwoman', 'Gigli', 'Howard The Duck'? That's just for starters, there are hundreds of movies that rank lower than any Bond movie in terms of cinematic aptitude. I can understand one disliking specific entries in the context of the series, but if you genuinely think the above are amongst the worst films ever made, you've clearly not seen a lot of films, or you're, as I say, insane.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    DAD is better than hundreds, maybe thousands of films out there. A truly BAD movie should be unwatchable. Even MR has its merits. No Bond movie is absolutely unwatchable.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Instead of "the whole series is mediocre" (this series gave us at least three of the best movies ever made) my opinion is that "especially when you consider that this is my favourite film series, a significant portion of said films is rather poor"; of the 23 films, there are nine I consider to be between "kinda bad" and "among the worst films ever made" and only fourteen that range from "good" to "among the best films ever made".

    You consider 'nine' of the Bond films amongst the worst films ever made? There's controversial and there's bat-shit insane.

    Or read my post properly? I said nine RANGE from "kinda bad" (e.g. Goldfinger) to "among the worst films ever made" (e.g. AVTAK, DAD).

    You're still talking out of your arse though. GF is nowhere near being a 'kinda bad' movie, and AVTAK and DAD are certainly nowhere near being the worst films ever made. Have you ever seen 'Freddie Got Fingered', 'Catwoman', 'Gigli', 'Howard The Duck'? That's just for starters, there are hundreds of movies that rank lower than any Bond movie in terms of cinematic aptitude. I can understand one disliking specific entries in the context of the series, but if you genuinely think the above are amongst the worst films ever made, you've clearly not seen a lot of films, or you're, as I say, insane.

    This! Have you seen Battleship? That makes Die Another Day seem like Hitchcock!
Sign In or Register to comment.