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'm not really interested in defending MR to be honest. All I would say is that you know my views on SF and MR and I have no particular desire rewatch either of them.
I think OHMSS beats it there. Some of the shots of the mountains are just brilliant.
I'd say the best movies visually are OHMSS, Spy, MR and SF.
You stated -"That's not to say MR's a 'better film' - just that there is IMO more in it to value and that is of interest to a Bond fan than a dreary and depressing film like SF".
I couldn't have put it better myself. When it comes to Bond it is not always about the quality of the film but sometimes it is about the characters, humorous dialogue, Locations,gadgets and of course the accompanying music. MR imo has these in abundance while SF, like CR , is much more about the boom and the bang and the vroom and the woosh and other such things :))
For my money SF has all the things you list and more.
So in other words, it's about tge quality of the whole film. Quite the contradiction there, mate. Secondly, I don't agree with your notion that Bond movies shouldn't always be about the quality. I find that to be a strange comment for any sane fan to make. I know I'd rather get film's like FRWL rather than the wanton outings of the likes of, MR and DAD.
In the same way I appreciate what they were trying to do with LTK but much prefer to watch TLD.
I guess what I'm saying is that if I'm looking for 'quality cinema' I don't reach for my Bond collection. I go to the cinema a lot and have pretty broad tastes. I suppose my key criteria is that whatever I'm watching in whatever genre does what it does really well. I do expect certain things from a Bond movie and that isn't existential angst or art house cinema pretensions. That stuff is done way better, more convincingly and entertainingly elsewhere.
A good post mate that will only make sense to people who watch a lot of films, and don't deem films such as SF and TDK as the absolute zenith of cinematic achievement. A few fans have certainly crawled up their own arse after SF.
hm, I suppose I see the points here, although I think Casino Royale for example is a phenomenal film by surely almost any measurement. I think that's really, really good cinema.
Quality is just quality.. right?
So almost nobody on this site then ;)
No contradiction if you read my post clearly. I said it is not ALWAYS (key word) about the quality of the film. When I say quality I suppose I am talking about the realism and dark nature of SF and CR.
Dont get me wrong I absolutely love FRWL as well, but you can't seriously say to me that FRWL is a typical Bond movie.
That and DAF are the most unique in the series. FRWL is the most 'spy' orientated and DAF is the most 'Cooky'.
My point is that MR is fun and SF isn't imo.
Ha ha.
:))
It isn't fun for you but it is for me! And FRWL is the best Bond film ever and the standard against which every Bond film should be measured in my opinion. For me to put FRWL in the same bowl as DAF is just... odd.
Was it then? I thought he said '96 to '97... I could be wrong
I didn't put DAF and FRWL in 'the same bowl'.
I said they are the most unique, for different reasons.
To use your bowl reference, DAF and FRWL would be in different bowls on there own due to their uniqueness.
You may think that FRWL should be the standard by which all bonds are measured, However I would disagree and say GF.
86-97, coinciding with the handover of HK to the Chinese.
It seems so. Although I find it odd as P&W had it in the original QoS script, and in screenwriting terns, calling that a hook seems to be overstating the case IMO. I struggle to believe this was his contribution.
Your right on one level, but the problem is, what is 'quality'? A lot of people are saying that the SF script is not just good, but excellent, whereas I feel it's a mediocre story with a few good bits of dialogue provided by Logan. IMO, if you compare it to Maibaum's best screenplays then SF is very weak indeed. For me that is one area where SF is clearly not a 'quality' film. I'd add the music to that as well, as I thought Newman's effort was generic and dull. However, as with the script, there are plenty of people on here saying Newman did an amazing, Oscar-worthy job, which when you think that Barry never even got a nomination, is hilarious.
So, what is quality? What do you say to people who think Jack Vettriano is a great artist, or that Les Mis is the greatest musical of all time? Are they wrong? I might disagree with them but these things are incredibly, inexplicably popular, and for many people they are they represent the pinnacle of their respective art forms.
I was looking at the 10 highest grossing films of all time earlier (of which SF is now one) and I don't think I would personally consider any of them particularly good. But try telling that to the people who cried at Titanic or love Harry Potter. So, what is quality?
I agree with you that FRWL isn't a typical Bond film and that's because Bond movies are largely bloated blockbuster movies that are although fun but flat out silly. For every FRWL quality style Bond movie, there are about 4 or 5 subpar entries imo of course. I'm all for epic escapism but film's like MR take it to the extreme and just hurts the series imo. Films like TB get such balance right. As for film's like CR and SF I find them fun and exciting and far more interesting and entertaining than the likes of MR because for starters I feel that they demonstrate a level of credibility that movies like MR do not. On top of that, film's like CR and SF appeal and attract a wider audience whereas i feel films like MR, although obviously a Bond film it feels too niche to me as, a "typical" Bond film, which is why your average joe doesn't ordinarily expect good quality Bond movies. Before CR, Bond films IMO were widely regarded as traditional fun films that were generally 1 dimensional and lacked any real depth. I'm not saying CR or SF are the apex of cinematic quality but I prefer these type of film's over the likes of MR. It's a matter of taste at the end of the day and we all have our preference.
Mendes has gone on record saying that all of Morgan's ideas were abandoned when he left and Logan came on. I can only assume he was talking about the death of M which Mendes and Purvis and Wade have said was an idea from the beginning so I'm sure Morgan took credit for that as his "hook"
Once again you have written a very well thought through post.
You are clearly a knowledgeable Bond fan and I am sure you appreciate the differing opinions on the movies. After all if we all loved the same few bonds I doubt the series would have lasted as long as it has.
Even though I didnt enjoy SF, long may it continue.
Sorry bout dissing SF again but this is the SF thread after all :)
First off, I made a blanket statement about SF vs MR since others here brought it up. I never attributed that directly to you or even the person who actually said it, it was simply a thought, so I'm afraid you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. My opinion is that SF is so much more Bondian and better that it isn't even worth my time to debate otherwise.
Second, I recognized my confusion between who said what several posts ago and rectified that with an apology to the Baron. You must have not been reading too well either. I still think the "lace my boots" statement was arrogant even within the context of the argument he and Willy were having. So sue me for having an opinion. I'm sure Baron and Mike don't need you to defend them and seem more than capable of addressing a grievance.
Third, you're out of line with your last remark. Dragging my personal mores into it is wrong of you, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you make generalizations such as this. A stereotypical, uninformed accusation that overindulgence makes you stupid. In this case, I read too fast and simply made a human error that can happen to anyone. I hold down a responsible and respectable job where great attention to detail is required, and my children are well cared for at all times and want for nothing all things considered, so if you or the ranks of the misinformed were so right then I shouldn't or wouldn't be able to do these things.
Finally, myself and several of my regular weed smoking buddies who I'm meeting up with later at Philly's finest cigar bar for a stogie and a few drinks, among them an early retired AT&T exec and a prominent lawyer, will all be enjoying a good laugh at your expense this evening. Thanks for the material ;) :P
Thanks. Honestly don't apologise for dissing SF. It's not your cup of tea and you have every right to convey your dislike for it. I appreciate your constructive criticisms and respect your opinions on the movie. I enjoy SF a great deal but IMO it could have been much better and like some others have mentioned, I feel SF relied too much on thematic elements, which to some degree impeded and created limitations on what could have resulted in a better plot. I also think China was underutilised as well as Silva's island, I was left slightly underwhelmed by various other parts of the movie. SF's great but very far from perfect.
Once again you were spot on about the films in that, they are indeed different and it's those differences that keeps the series unique, interesting and never stale. We all have our preferences but sometimes we're in the mood for something different. I love CR and SF but I'd blow my brains out if all 23 movies were made in that style. Sometimes one just wants a fun and relaxed outing that's not so "heavy" for a change of pace and I'm glad we have the option to throw on TMWTGG, OP or LALD (3 of my favourite Moore outings)to get it.
I'm actually more amused by the recent Instagram picture of Miley Cyrus behind a cloud of pot smoke, which she didn't go out of her way to exactly deny. Now I know why her nickname is "Smiley". This will be definitely be fodder for conversation later, as we all support legalization and feel alcohol causes far more damage for a legal product.
I'm guessing Disney is rushing to cancel future reruns of "Hannah Montana" as we speak =))
SF OTHH was poorly written (except for dialogue), and directed well, but not expertly as a Bond movie. So while I still like it, it ranks lower than CR, and much lower than QOS for me. Sort of in FYEO territory.
Chillax. The weed is making you hyper paranoid/defensive.