It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I really wonder how large an inferiority complex you must have, that you feel that compelled to denigrate anyone who dares to have a different opinion than you. Oh and by the Way - the first Hour of DAD (untill 007 arrives in London and maybe a few minutes more) has about ten times more competence (regarding the Script), whit and of course James Bond than SF and Nobody is more Sorry about this than me!
You got to be jocking!?
Of course you think that way about DAD. I wouldn't expect anything more from you...and you.....and you (addressing all 3 trollers in one).
I think you need to relax
Try some "mink, it reduces the tension"
No trolling here just disagreements.
We all like different bonds, is that really a surprise?
Hoppimike, it's great to have someone with a fresh pair of eyes who speaks the truth. Frankly there are a lot of old farts on here who wouldn't know what a good film was if it came and slapped them round the face. I happen to agree with you but I like your absence of BS - you say it as it is, which is that SF is a bit of a downer and that's a strange thing for a Bond movie to be. OHMSS ends on a downer but overall the film is up beat. SF ends on a downer but overall the film is dreary and depressing.
Of the seven Bond films I've now seen in the cinema SF is the only one that left me wanting to genuinely see it again straight away. It was hardly depressing.
It really is very tiresome seeing the SF fan club laying into everyone who dares criticise SF. Understand this - those who are disappointed by SF are not fans of DAD. What we dislike about SF is the fact that it reminds us of the bad old Brosnan era. SF didn't remind me of classic Bond, it felt like a remake of TWINE. That's exactly what I didn't like about it. I thought the DC era was taking us forward to bigger and better things and then we get SF - retrograde, poorly written and dubiously directed drek.
I 'respect' people's right to enjoy it but I cannot pretend for a moment it is a film worthy of being compared with the Bond classics. It is mid table mediocrity at best and with time I strongly suspect it will be relogated to the lower divisions.
I understand the desire to elevate the DC films to more than they truly are but people round here really need to get a grip.
The acting makes it better than TWINE
The cast makes it better than TWINE
The humour makes it better than TWINE
It's a better film than TWINE all round.
TWINE isn't all that bad in my view but SF is miles ahead of it in every respect.
Poor old Bain. You grew up watching the nadir of Bond - the Brosnan era. Of course you wouldn't want to see those films again. They're sh*t.
CR and QoS are much better films but only delusional lunatics would really claim that they're as good as the classic Bond era. CR is an earnest and decent film but it's not the joyous celebration of Bondness that some claim. The DC era is fine but at the end of the day it's not as good as Sean, Rog, or even Tim. It's not DC's fault. It's just that the writing is still not as good as it should be. Now that Purvis and Wade have gone I am looking forward to a proper Bond movie. Logan wrote some good scenes in SF and I am hopeful that left to his own devices he will deliver the goods for Bond 24.
I've been going to see new Bond films in cinema since the 80s and for me it was also the only one I wanted to see again straight away. To me it was a joyful experience, it was beautiful, and made me smile a lot (during and after). Like a mix of vitamins and endorphins gulped down, feeling energized and smiley afterwards, or a bit giddy even just thinking of various things in it. Talking of it as depressing is just weird to me. It always amazes me how differently people see and experience films.
Um-hum. Somehow that doesn't seem quite logical. ;) You complain of attacks from those who have different views, yet attack others in a similar manner for the same reason. Would you like to be told to "get a grip" by those who disagree with your views?
I never said I didn't enjoy the Brosnan films at the time. SF was just the only film ive seen in the cinema that left me literally buzzing. I've never felt that walking out at the end of a Bond film before.
2/3 of DC's films are better than most of rogers and both of Tims.
Yes, it's better than TWINE, but that's not hard because TWINE was complete and utter cr*@.
It's like comparing Strongbow with Carling - both cr*@ but inevitably someone is going to prefer one over the other. But they're still just cr*@.
I'm just going to say it how I see it. The Brosnan films are total garbage. Frankly I don't understand how any one sees any merit in them whatsoever. By comparison the DC films are much much better but none of them capture the joyfulness of Sean or Rog, or even of Laz or Tim. That's just the way I see it. I can't pretend any more that I think the DC films are as good as what was made up until 89 - they're just not. They might be technically competent with some decent acting but they just lack the special something that the Cubby films had. Call me a heretic if you like but I'm just saying it how I see it and I can't pretend to agree with the SF/DC crowd any longer.
When you think the emperor has no clothes you have to say so.
I say it again not all of those films were great but then again If you'd rather watch an ageing soon-to-be pensioner surfing to the beach boys or seducing women old enough to be his daughters be my guest. That film was made before 89 after all ;)
I think people have a tendency to look back at "old Bond" with Rose tinted glasses.
To be honest I like DC as Bond but I just don't think his films overall are as good as they should have been. We live in the post modern era when everything has to be that much cleverer than it used to be to pass muster and DC's films were unfortunately written by a couple of idiots. It's not his fault - it's just the way the cookie crumbles. Babs and MGW have made a lot of progress since GE but for some reason they have not been able to sort out the writing and that has been their achilies heel.
I think that right there gives me a licence to kill.... :-w
I don't care too much. I find most of the people on here pretty reasonable. I think most people understand that you can disagree and it isn't the end of the world. I disagree with a lot of what Bain says but I can tell that he is a decent bloke. Some people like German Lady are clearly certifiable but I just try and avoid them.
I think at some point you just have to say it as it is and for me the DC era is an improvement on the disaster that was Brosnan but still overall disappointing. For me he simply hasn't made a film that stands up to the classics. Laz, Rog and Tim all have classic Bonds IMO to rival if not surpass the best Connery movies. DC, despite having the potential to be great, has not made a film that bears comparison.
I'm not trying to offend any of those people who love to get wound up, I'm just saying it how I see it.
At first you said Skyfall was the worst, now it's AVTAK and TWINE. I'm thinking you haven't thought about this very much.
I'd take AVTAK and TWINE over DAD and MR, no question. Only DAD exceeds MR as the worst Bond film, and that's mostly because of Sir Roger's sense of humor and style.
I respect your opinion in that you prefer the Dalton films and hate Brozza's - this is where our tastes are very similar.
However, I honestly believe what we have now is as good, if not better, than Dalton's era. For some reason you cannot see it. Either you see too many hangovers from the Brosnan era when watching DC's films, or your judgement is being clouded by nostalgia for a bygone era which really wasn't all that either.
The chello scene in TLD I found silly, a hangover from the Moore era, and the scenes in Afghanistan are really dull to me, not very Bond like at all. Also, watching AVTAK again recently, and there seems to be a lot of check list ticks throughout the film, that I noticed appear in Dalton's films too - all too contrived and formulaic. The one thing all 3 of DC's films don't do is follow the same formula pattern. Each one is very, very different to the next.
LTK, as much as I love it, is not without its faults either. The overall direction has an 80's TV movie vibe, without the sheen and exotic style we expect in Bond movies. The cinematography alone in SF wipes the floor with anything seen in Daltons' films.
Ignore the old farts on here who love Dalton and Connery films like me, as I wouldn't know what a good film was if it came up and slapped me round the face, and get cosy with your new found friend.
I'm sure you have many things in common...... :D
What? when did I mention AVTAK or TWINE?
My top 23 is in the other thread if you want to take a look.
Which you obviously need to instead of making up sh*t that I never said!!
Does someone need to have watched 22 other films to realise that DAD is not very good? No. Ditto SF.
I totally accept that in terms of production values the DC films are in a higher league than a lot of the earlier films, but that doesn't make them classics. DC is a good Bond but the films are just not as good as the best of the past. I wish I could pretend otherwise but I can't. Dalton was a better Bond in better films.
It was ALWAYS like that. We call it double standard. But nothing will change it until all jump on the Getafix anti SF wagon, But - like Willy said - not gonna happen. The DVD's are seeling like crazy - another example for how good the film still is in peoples mind.
I doubt your opinion will ever change on DC and his films, or on SF, so I won't try to change your mind.
Likewise, you should extend the SF fans here the same respect. I don't see SF as a flash-in-the-pan, quick trend that will slowly turn everyone against it over time. It is a film that is extremely good, both as a Bond film and as a standalone film, and this has been recognised globally by critics everywhere, not to mention the awards it is picking up along the way.
It's not just members here who have been won over by SF - it's happened everywhere. I think this is what you are having difficulty accepting. How can a Bond film be gaining so much popularity, both commercially and critically, and yet you don't see it? This must be the question you keep asking yourself, and why you keep getting frustrated with SF fans on here.