Who/what do you REALLY love to hate?

245678

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    pachazo wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    9. Winking fish in LTK: what a way of finish that superb movie...
    Dragonpol wrote:
    The winking fish at the end of LTK.
    Come on now do you guys really hate this? It's stupid for sure but does it really infuriate you that much? I mean I'm not a big fan at all of the Tarzan yell in OP but it doesn't ruin the movie for me. If you do just absolutely have it in for the winking fish could you please amuse me by explaining why?

    Yeah remember this has to be stuff that is truly loathed and makes you want to put your fist through the screen. Is the winking fish that bad for some of you? I just find it rather cheesy and naff.

    One I completely forgot which should really be in the top 10 without question:

    DAD - Where Miranda takes the magazine out and Bond doesnt even notice!! This scene is a f**king outrage, even amongst the carange of DAD. That James Bond would not know within half a second that the gun he was holding is empty betrays that no one on set knew a thing about the character and again Babs and MGW have to take the ultimate blame again for me. Absolute travesty.

    About 'this never happened to the other fella' - I can see why people hate but I have to confess to loving it even if it breaks the 4th wall. I've heard a lot of people mention the Cinderella defence but isnt the point of Cinderella that she did go and leave him holding the shoe? So if you want to kid yourself its not a 4th wall breaker it would have to be 'this did happen to the other fella'.

    Sorry but the only way you can take it is as a tongue in cheek reference to Sean!
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    Can I add one from the books?

    Maybe 'hate' is too strong a word for it but I really don't like the moment in YOLT when Kissy refers to her thong as her "black cat". The pussy innuendo was funny in GF but here it just seems like a rather desperate attempt from Fleming to make the readers laugh. Its crude even for his standards and made me feel uncomfortable reading it.

    No woman would ever call her thong her black cat unless she was a stripper.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2013 Posts: 9,117
    If we're delving into the books then Sebastian Faulkes needs a mention. Simply offensive that a 'professional' author could turn in such a pitiful effort.

    I would have it in my top 5 actually - I think of the books its worse than DAD.

    Dragonpol I even rate NSF above it.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    edited May 2013 Posts: 987



    DAD - Where Miranda takes the magazine out and Bond doesnt even notice!! This scene is a f**king outrage, even amongst the carange of DAD. That James Bond would not know within half a second that the gun he was holding is empty betrays that no one on set knew a thing about the character and again Babs and MGW have to take the ultimate blame again for me. Absolute travesty.

    To be fair to DAD (not that I really want to), I've always assumed Miranda Frost just damaged or removed the firing pin from the Walther P99, this would cause the weapon not to function without any noticeable loss of weight or visible change of appearance, in fact in the Raymond Benson novelisation of the film Miranda is quoted as saying she has bent the firing pin.

    Come to think of it, if we're talking about things we hate, I could really go to town on Raymond Benson (spit!)...

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    If we're delving into the books then Sebastian Faulkes needs a mention. Simply offensive that a 'professional' author could turn in such a pitiful effort.

    I would have it in my top 5 actually - I think of the books its worse than DAD.

    Dragonpol I even rate NSF above it.

    Lumme, you actually rate NSF above something?! Fetch me my oxygen tank!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote:
    If we're delving into the books then Sebastian Faulkes needs a mention. Simply offensive that a 'professional' author could turn in such a pitiful effort.

    I would have it in my top 5 actually - I think of the books its worse than DAD.

    Dragonpol I even rate NSF above it.

    Lumme, you actually rate NSF above something?! Fetch me my oxygen tank!

    In fairness I have it above Seafire and Cold as well and probably half of the Benson books. That's pretty faint praise mind.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    Dragonpol wrote:
    If we're delving into the books then Sebastian Faulkes needs a mention. Simply offensive that a 'professional' author could turn in such a pitiful effort.

    I would have it in my top 5 actually - I think of the books its worse than DAD.

    Dragonpol I even rate NSF above it.

    Lumme, you actually rate NSF above something?! Fetch me my oxygen tank!

    In fairness I have it above Seafire and Cold as well and probably half of the Benson books. That's pretty faint praise mind.

    True, but I may make you see things my way at soime point in the future, though I won't hold my breath.
  • Posts: 4,762
    -Tracy Bond
    -Miss Galore
    -Goldfinger (the movie, not the character)
    -soundtrack for OHMSS (although the theme music is pretty epic; everything else is annyoing)
    -the gondola scene in MR
    -Holly Goodhead
    -Jaws' change of character in MR
    -George Lazenby's stupid one-liners in OHMSS
    -Connery's lazy, half-hearted performance in YOLT
    -YOLT theme song
    -soundtrack for DN
    -Jinx (by the second half of DAD; she's tolerable in the first half, at least)
    -Denise Richards as Christmas Jones (she's extremely attractive, but is a lousy actress!)
    -Nick Nack
    -Tiffany Case not knowing how to use a machine gun during the climax of DAF
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    00Beast wrote:
    -Jinx (by the second half of DAD; she's tolerable in the first half, at least)

    No she really isn't. She's tolerable for the first 5 seconds as she err bounces into view but then she opens her mouth and we are straight into the painful sub Carry On innuendo of the ornithology scene.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    The Moneypenny/Bond virtual reality scene from DAD, probably the worst scene EVER. Really hate it, HATE it!
  • Posts: 1,817
    pachazo wrote:
    0013 wrote:
    9. Winking fish in LTK: what a way of finish that superb movie...
    Dragonpol wrote:
    The winking fish at the end of LTK.
    Come on now do you guys really hate this? It's stupid for sure but does it really infuriate you that much? I mean I'm not a big fan at all of the Tarzan yell in OP but it doesn't ruin the movie for me. If you do just absolutely have it in for the winking fish could you please amuse me by explaining why?

    Yeah remember this has to be stuff that is truly loathed and makes you want to put your fist through the screen. Is the winking fish that bad for some of you? I just find it rather cheesy and naff.

    If it were in FYEO, OP, or whatever Roger movie, I wouldn't mind. But to end LTK that way? Dalton's tenure ends with a winking fish?? And is that even posible, I mean does the fish have a mechanical feature that makes the eyelid move?
  • Posts: 2,483
    I love LTK. And I love the winking fish. It is a perfect, traditional cinematic Bond ending. And yes, we are to assume that the fish has a mechanical eye, not that it is a sentient being expressing its approval of Bond's selection of Pam over Lupe.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 3,566
    Seconded and thirded for the "Bondola" and Tiffany's moment with a machine gun. But I must defend the theme to YOLT. (A few other things have been mentioned that I simply don't agree with at all, nonetheless I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone else may hold an opinion contrary to my own.) I think the music to YOLT is just gorgeous. I can acknowledge that Nancy Sinatra's performance is less than stellar -- but I think the song itself is top-flight!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    In no real order:

    *Lee Tamahori. Rather self explanatory I'd say...

    *DAF: And absolute joke of a film that is a camp riddled mess instead of a faithful revenge film that follows up OHMSS.

    *DAD and basically a majority of the Brosnan era for being ignorant of all its potential.

    *Halle Berry. Need I say more?

    *James Bond as a celebrity. Last time I checked, the title of "secret agent" didn't mean everyone and their dog knew who you were!

    *Charles Gray's Blofeld. Blofeld in drag? Get the hell out...

    *Tiffany Case. More like Tiffany "Basket" Case.

    *The lack of any depth in the Moore era.

    Quite honestly I don't have that many issues with the franchise and am happy with how it has grown. In addition, I can enjoy almost all of the films with relative ease, even if I don't agree with them and am proud of what the franchise as a whole has accomplished. That being said, these are the things that really grind the gears.
  • Posts: 4,762
    *The lack of any depth in the Moore era.

    I must say, I cannot agree here! Here are a few instances:

    *Andrea's death in TMWTGG- happening offscreen, we are to let our imaginations to run wild as to how and when Scaramanga shot her; Bond was obviously very upset about this killing, and used it to drive him to defeat Scaramanga, I believe.

    *Anya threatening to kill Bond after he murdered Sergei Barsov- after watching TSWLM tonight, I am amazed by how perfectly Roger pulled this scene off; we feel a bit sorry for Anya, since she lost her lover, but we also feel sorry for Bond, who was faced with a tough situation which could have called for an even tougher choice- taking out Anya for his own life's safety

    *Corrine's death in MR- almost self-explanatory, but this one is so dark and menacing that it deserves to make the list; a "heart-of-gold" woman like Corrine, being mauled by Dobermans, I mean yikes; it's bone chilling, to say the least

    *The Havelocks' murder in FYEO- heart-breaking and gut-wrenching, really; also the driving force for a main aspect of the movie

    *Vijay's death in OP- Bond was obviously very affected by this one, because not only does he take the time to cover the body, but immediately upon seeing the death, he insists on getting in touch with M to pursue Kamal and his goons

    *Tibbett's death in AVTAK- one of my favorite quote sections of any Bond movie comes when Bond tells Zorin that "killing Tibbett was a mistake"; so deep, and played perfectly again by Roger
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @00Beast, some of those moments are indeed great, but my issue is how the films then ruin them but doing something campy that ruins the tension those same moments set. Andrea's death was brilliant and chilling, but Bond just moves along afterwards doing more stupid campy stuff and never brings her up again and beds the lesser of the two, the thick in the head Ms. Goodnight. How she became an agent I have no idea...

    The moment with Anya in TSWLM is also downright fantastic, but then the film rather sloppily does absolutely nothing of depth with that. We could have seen Bond and Anya in a fight against each other after they succeeded in stopping Drax, but just like with Jaws the film cops out and takes the easy road. Anya just out of the blue (and in literal seconds) for some reason lets Bond pass for killing the man she loved and she just mindlessly sleeps with him, then credits. That's it, nothing more. Again, more potential lost, and part of why Anya annoys me.

    Corrine's death is of note, but how does that connect to Bond? My statement is focusing on moments where Bond shows no depth, and not the actual events of the film that have no relation to his character. Still, while we are here, Corrine's death bugs me. She rides in on a golf cart to speak with Drax, yet when the dogs are sent after her and she knows she is in danger of dying she doesn't hop back on the cart just feet away and attempt to get out while she can. Instead she runs right past the cart and races through the woods before getting mauled. To sum it up, I think she'd have had better luck getting on the cart instead of running into the expanse of trees.

    Again, the Havelock's murder is just an event in the film, where as I have issues with the character of Bond showing no depth. But I do agree: A stellar moment that really sets the mood for the film.

    Vijay's death hits me hard, as I do like the character, and while Bond seems to be angered by it, afterwards we get no mention of the character again, much less from Bond and then more campy action happens with no substance. I may be a bit picky with this one, but that is just how it comes off as.

    Tibbett's death and Bond's feelings about it is again a great moment, but once again basically forgotten by the film and apparently Bond.

    All these deeply tense and substance riddled scenes would mean so much more if they were expanded upon instead of simply being forgotten. The Moore era had some outstanding moments that really showed Bond's dark side, but they were few and far between and were never built upon and ruined by stupid one-liners or campy scenes following them. There is where my issues lie.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 388
    To address your points from yesterday on Kevin Sir James:
    I'm going to play devil's advocate here, @Wizard, and write in defence of Kevin McClory.

    McClory was a pain but I don't share the feeling that he was a real villain.

    I'll come to the point about claiming a slice of everything that belonged to Eon later (as it's an important one. But I think it's fair to say that McClory (and Wittingham) did more than just sat in on a script meeting. They both worked together with Fleming to shape the stories and characters that would become Thunderball.

    I'll give you this. The 3 men worked on a script together and as its pretty much untangleable after all this time as to who came up with what I think the only fair way is to give them each 33% credit. However personally I lean towards thinking the concept was Mcclory's, Fleming put a bit of meat on the idea and then Whittingham is largely responsible for the story as is. I would say if pressed that the division is probably more like Mclory 35%, Whittingham 45% and Fleming 20%.

    BUT although that might entitle you to the lions share of the story of TB, Bond is still Flemings and for a judge to award McClory the rights to use the James Bond character in as many films as he could get backing for (albeit based on TB) I find outrageous. A fair settlement would be damages and share of the book sales and the right to make films based on the idea of SPECTRE, Blofeld and the hijacking of nuclear warheads but the hero would have to be changed. At best.
    Just imagine you knock up a script with JK Rowling who then uses it for a new Harry Potter book. You mght get some damages but there is no way her legal team would let you get a piece of the pie and be able to make rival Harry Potter films.
    I tend to think this case is possibly a sign of the times it took place. Nowadays I dont believe a judge would award someone such rights to an already established character or franchise as we all understand the value of such franchise rights but back then the judge probably thought it was peanuts and a reasonable compromise.

    Yes, I think that's right. Film franchises have generated spectacular profits over the past 50 years but I suppose there wasn't really a precedent in 1963. I'm sure it was decided upon as a very conservative settlement and, really, as Fleming had already sold the rights to his other books and as he received a fee from McClory for the film rights to Thunderball, it wasn't a hugely punitive judgement even looking back now.

    Fleming's actions in taking his work without credit or payment was legally and morally wrong. He was certainly arrogant but I think the claims that Fleming was simply naïve is way too charitable. It's not like Ian Fleming was a young guy writing and self-publishing his first novel who had picked up a few bits and pieces of someone else's work without realising that he wasn't entitled to use them. He'd been a published author for almost 10 years and had been foreign manager of a newspaper group for 15 years. He was a middle-aged man with his own agent, his own publisher and a bunch of legal friends who all would have certainly advised him to not use the material or to pay and / or credit McClory and Wittingham for their work. He must have realised, whilst writing an entire novel based partly on the works of others, that what he was doing was legally and morally questionable.

    Cant really argue with this. The fact though is that morally, as it is a Bond story, doesnt it ultimately belong to Fleming? If Fleming had just said 'forget the whole thing' and created his own original story for his novel that year then Mclory's script would have been rendered as utterly worthless as a piece of fan fiction.

    Absolutely, McClory lucked out because he got the rights to a pretty well-formed but generic story that just happened to feature the most valuable character in fiction. But the character of Bond and so on still belonged to Fleming. The only thing that McClory got where the film rights to TB. That's why I'm convinced that the decision wasn't too bad for Fleming... he only lost control of something that wouldn't have been his anyway (as the film rights would have gone to Eon if McClory didn't have them.)
    I don't know. McClory got damages and the film rights to Thunderball (plus a credit in the novel.) That was it. Fleming still fully profited from sales of the novel and also, I think, would have profited from any film adaptation. Really, it was pretty small fry. It could have been much worse. McClory could have demanded the novel be pulped, or that it be credited as Thunderball by "Ian Fleming and Kevin McClory" or huge damages etc. All McClory got was was Charles K Feldman had - the film rights to a single novel.

    In late 1963 what was worth more a cash payout or the rights to jump on the Bondwagon? I dont think what McClory got could be classed as small fry, although you could argue it actually hurt EON financially more than it did Fleming. (Just in passing, does anyone know the financial arrangements in place between EON and Fleming/the Fleming estate? Does the fact they had paid him for the rights mean that was an end of it or did he get any royalties?)

    Yes, I think that's a great point. The settlement was barely a punishment at all for Fleming but would prove inconvenient for Eon, on-and-off, over the following 35 years. That said, Eon knew that there was a question mark over the TB rights when they signed with Fleming (and they had exactly the same problem with CR.)

    My understanding is that Ian Fleming Publications gets $100,000 per film + 5% of Danjaq's profits.

    Again, playing devil's advocate, I think his behaviour to begin with was pretty good. He could have done a Feldman and tried to set up his own rival movie, competing with Eon. Had he done so in 1965 at the height of Bondmania, it's hard to imagine what would have happened. It certainly could have been very damaging. Instead, he worked with Broccoli and Saltzman and produced the most successful Bond film of them all (until SF, at least.) He agreed not to make a rival film for 10 years and he was true to his word.

    I dont really agree with this. In 1965 good luck to you making a Bond film without Sean Connery. Unless a studio had backed the project to the hilt with a big name actor I cant really see a standalone TB being that much of a problem to EON. And how many studio execs would have the bottle to sign off on a massive budget to go head to head with EON and Sean in those days? That said Columbia gave Feldman a ridiculous budget so maybe. But even if a rival TB had been a reasonable success then what? You cant just keep remaking the same film year in year out can you?

    I'm not sure. Like you say, Feldman managed to get a massive budget for CR. McClory might have done the same and I think you're right that he wouldn't have been able to do much else afterwards. It's hard to say what might have happened if, for example, Eons OHMSS was up against McClory's TB in 1965 but I imagine it could have been a problem. That said, I'm sure that one of the main reasons McClory agreed to work with Eon, rather than against them, is because he realised that would be the most profitable thing.

    I don't imagine McClory planned to remake the film more than once, originally. It must have been unthinkable at the time that the Bond series would have any value 20 years down the line. Broccoli and Saltzman had originally agreed to wind down Danjaq after 10 years (presumably on the assumption that it would have reached the end of its natural life)... I imagine that is related to the 10 years McClory had to wait before remaking TB.
    For being the person who drove Fleming to an early grave...
    I think Fleming is pretty much to blame on this one. Alcoholic chain-smokers who spend their lives eating eggs and butter can only expect to last so long...

    I havent read an actual biography of McClory but what I have read about him indicates to me he was a chancer far more interested in getting something for nothing than he was putting in a honest days graft. Fleming made a foolish error through arrogance, naivety, whatever by not crediting him and this guy saw a chance to live in clover for the rest of his life on the back of the work Ian, Cubby and Harry had put in making the character a success.

    Fleming was living on borrowed time due to his lifestyle and that was his choice but the stress of being hounded by a parasite who thought he was entitled to a share of everything Fleming had built up certainly curtailed his life even further. If the guy had taken the damages and his share of TB's success I might have been more sympathetic towards him but the idea that he was entitled to a paycheck for the rest of his life due to the phenemomen created by Fleming, Cubby and Harry is just an insult to any right minded person.

    I haven't read his biography either although he doesn't seem like a particularly nice man. In some ways it seems like the TB case was the worst thing to happen to him - he worked pretty constantly throughout the 1950s up the the role of writer-director-producer. After TB he did nothing at all until NSNA (and it seems he did relatively little on that.)

    His scandalous claim for a full share of the Bond rights in the 1990s was an absolute joke. But I really think Sony and particularly Calley were the villains here - they knew of McClory's rights and tried to use them (and McClory) in order to exploit MGM.
  • @00Beast, some of those moments are indeed great, but my issue is how the films then ruin them but doing something campy that ruins the tension those same moments set. Andrea's death was brilliant and chilling, but Bond just moves along afterwards doing more stupid campy stuff and never brings her up again and beds the lesser of the two, the thick in the head Ms. Goodnight. How she became an agent I have no idea...

    The moment with Anya in TSWLM is also downright fantastic, but then the film rather sloppily does absolutely nothing of depth with that. We could have seen Bond and Anya in a fight against each other after they succeeded in stopping Drax, but just like with Jaws the film cops out and takes the easy road. Anya just out of the blue (and in literal seconds) for some reason lets Bond pass for killing the man she loved and she just mindlessly sleeps with him, then credits. That's it, nothing more. Again, more potential lost, and part of why Anya annoys me.

    Corrine's death is of note, but how does that connect to Bond? My statement is focusing on moments where Bond shows no depth, and not the actual events of the film that have no relation to his character. Still, while we are here, Corrine's death bugs me. She rides in on a golf cart to speak with Drax, yet when the dogs are sent after her and she knows she is in danger of dying she doesn't hop back on the cart just feet away and attempt to get out while she can. Instead she runs right past the cart and races through the woods before getting mauled. To sum it up, I think she'd have had better luck getting on the cart instead of running into the expanse of trees.

    Again, the Havelock's murder is just an event in the film, where as I have issues with the character of Bond showing no depth. But I do agree: A stellar moment that really sets the mood for the film.

    Vijay's death hits me hard, as I do like the character, and while Bond seems to be angered by it, afterwards we get no mention of the character again, much less from Bond and then more campy action happens with no substance. I may be a bit picky with this one, but that is just how it comes off as.

    Tibbett's death and Bond's feelings about it is again a great moment, but once again basically forgotten by the film and apparently Bond.

    All these deeply tense and substance riddled scenes would mean so much more if they were expanded upon instead of simply being forgotten. The Moore era had some outstanding moments that really showed Bond's dark side, but they were few and far between and were never built upon and ruined by stupid one-liners or campy scenes following them. There is where my issues lie.

    Regarding the deaths being ignored / forgotten - can't you make much the same argument for most of the deaths in the Bond films until LTK? Quarrel, Kerim, Paula, Aki, Campbell, Plenty, & Saunders all get a bit of a sad face and then Bond seems to forget they ever existed. Jill Masterson is maybe the only exception if only because her pesky sister makes a nuisance of herself!

    (Fleming's definitely guilty of this too - I'm re-reading DN at the moment. Bond's great friend Quarrel is horribly burned to death and 10 pages later Bond is laughing his head off whilst enjoying himself in No's 'mink-lined prison')
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 11,189
    @00Beast, some of those moments are indeed great, but my issue is how the films then ruin them but doing something campy that ruins the tension those same moments set. Andrea's death was brilliant and chilling, but Bond just moves along afterwards doing more stupid campy stuff and never brings her up again and beds the lesser of the two, the thick in the head Ms. Goodnight. How she became an agent I have no idea...

    The moment with Anya in TSWLM is also downright fantastic, but then the film rather sloppily does absolutely nothing of depth with that. We could have seen Bond and Anya in a fight against each other after they succeeded in stopping Drax, but just like with Jaws the film cops out and takes the easy road. Anya just out of the blue (and in literal seconds) for some reason lets Bond pass for killing the man she loved and she just mindlessly sleeps with him, then credits. That's it, nothing more. Again, more potential lost, and part of why Anya annoys me.

    Corrine's death is of note, but how does that connect to Bond? My statement is focusing on moments where Bond shows no depth, and not the actual events of the film that have no relation to his character. Still, while we are here, Corrine's death bugs me. She rides in on a golf cart to speak with Drax, yet when the dogs are sent after her and she knows she is in danger of dying she doesn't hop back on the cart just feet away and attempt to get out while she can. Instead she runs right past the cart and races through the woods before getting mauled. To sum it up, I think she'd have had better luck getting on the cart instead of running into the expanse of trees.

    Again, the Havelock's murder is just an event in the film, where as I have issues with the character of Bond showing no depth. But I do agree: A stellar moment that really sets the mood for the film.

    Vijay's death hits me hard, as I do like the character, and while Bond seems to be angered by it, afterwards we get no mention of the character again, much less from Bond and then more campy action happens with no substance. I may be a bit picky with this one, but that is just how it comes off as.

    Tibbett's death and Bond's feelings about it is again a great moment, but once again basically forgotten by the film and apparently Bond.

    All these deeply tense and substance riddled scenes would mean so much more if they were expanded upon instead of simply being forgotten. The Moore era had some outstanding moments that really showed Bond's dark side, but they were few and far between and were never built upon and ruined by stupid one-liners or campy scenes following them. There is where my issues lie.

    Regarding the deaths being ignored / forgotten - can't you make much the same argument for most of the deaths in the Bond films until LTK? Quarrel, Kerim, Paula, Aki, Campbell, Plenty, & Saunders all get a bit of a sad face and then Bond seems to forget they ever existed. Jill Masterson is maybe the only exception if only because her pesky sister makes a nuisance of herself!

    (Fleming's definitely guilty of this too - I'm re-reading DN at the moment. Bond's great friend Quarrel is horribly burned to death and 10 pages later Bond is laughing his head off whilst enjoying himself in No's 'mink-lined prison')

    Deleted
  • Posts: 4,762
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7: I see, I see. You are correct about this! These moments usually do go to waste after only a few minutes, which is sad, considering the fact that they have such potential to move the audience. Although, as Bond is an agent, he is required to have to move on and keep going with the assignment, so who knows, perhaps that was the intent with these scenes being forgotten!
  • Posts: 1,548
    Roger Moore's acting apart from the dinner scene in MWTGG, the killing of Locque in FYEO and the Smythe back story scene in OP.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    In late 1963 what was worth more a cash payout or the rights to jump on the Bondwagon? I dont think what McClory got could be classed as small fry, although you could argue it actually hurt EON financially more than it did Fleming. (Just in passing, does anyone know the financial arrangements in place between EON and Fleming/the Fleming estate? Does the fact they had paid him for the rights mean that was an end of it or did he get any royalties?)

    Yes, I think that's a great point. The settlement was barely a punishment at all for Fleming but would prove inconvenient for Eon, on-and-off, over the following 35 years. That said, Eon knew that there was a question mark over the TB rights when they signed with Fleming (and they had exactly the same problem with CR.)


    Thinking about this I wonder why EON did not attempt to block TB and CR at the time, the way they did with McClory's other attempts later, on the basis he was cashing in on a phenomenon created by them rather than Fleming. Yes Fleming created the character and the likes of M, Moneypenny, Leiter etc but it was EON who took it to another level with things like the gunbarrel, the music, the one liners, the gadgets etc.
    Bondmania, which is what McClory and Feldman were cashing in on, was EONs creation probably more than Flemings.

    I would think these days that EON would have a case to say that this settlement was entirely unfair no matter what McClorys rights were to the story of TB.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @00Beast, some of those moments are indeed great, but my issue is how the films then ruin them but doing something campy that ruins the tension those same moments set. Andrea's death was brilliant and chilling, but Bond just moves along afterwards doing more stupid campy stuff and never brings her up again and beds the lesser of the two, the thick in the head Ms. Goodnight. How she became an agent I have no idea...

    The moment with Anya in TSWLM is also downright fantastic, but then the film rather sloppily does absolutely nothing of depth with that. We could have seen Bond and Anya in a fight against each other after they succeeded in stopping Drax, but just like with Jaws the film cops out and takes the easy road. Anya just out of the blue (and in literal seconds) for some reason lets Bond pass for killing the man she loved and she just mindlessly sleeps with him, then credits. That's it, nothing more. Again, more potential lost, and part of why Anya annoys me.

    Corrine's death is of note, but how does that connect to Bond? My statement is focusing on moments where Bond shows no depth, and not the actual events of the film that have no relation to his character. Still, while we are here, Corrine's death bugs me. She rides in on a golf cart to speak with Drax, yet when the dogs are sent after her and she knows she is in danger of dying she doesn't hop back on the cart just feet away and attempt to get out while she can. Instead she runs right past the cart and races through the woods before getting mauled. To sum it up, I think she'd have had better luck getting on the cart instead of running into the expanse of trees.

    Again, the Havelock's murder is just an event in the film, where as I have issues with the character of Bond showing no depth. But I do agree: A stellar moment that really sets the mood for the film.

    Vijay's death hits me hard, as I do like the character, and while Bond seems to be angered by it, afterwards we get no mention of the character again, much less from Bond and then more campy action happens with no substance. I may be a bit picky with this one, but that is just how it comes off as.

    Tibbett's death and Bond's feelings about it is again a great moment, but once again basically forgotten by the film and apparently Bond.

    All these deeply tense and substance riddled scenes would mean so much more if they were expanded upon instead of simply being forgotten. The Moore era had some outstanding moments that really showed Bond's dark side, but they were few and far between and were never built upon and ruined by stupid one-liners or campy scenes following them. There is where my issues lie.

    Regarding the deaths being ignored / forgotten - can't you make much the same argument for most of the deaths in the Bond films until LTK? Quarrel, Kerim, Paula, Aki, Campbell, Plenty, & Saunders all get a bit of a sad face and then Bond seems to forget they ever existed. Jill Masterson is maybe the only exception if only because her pesky sister makes a nuisance of herself!

    (Fleming's definitely guilty of this too - I'm re-reading DN at the moment. Bond's great friend Quarrel is horribly burned to death and 10 pages later Bond is laughing his head off whilst enjoying himself in No's 'mink-lined prison')

    That is debatable, @Sir_James_Moloney. Quarrel's death is the reason why Bond goes so severely after Dr. No as he does, as he mentions as he is taken with Honey, so no, his death isn't forgotten. The same with allies like Kerim, where again the death angers Bond and makes him more determined than ever to take out Grant. He even has to break the news of Kerim's death to one of his sons. Hardly forgotten. Hell, in GF Jill's death (and Tilly's later) shocks him and he basically risks being tossed off the assignment because M worries about him seeking revenge. Both Tilly and Jill are mentioned by Bond afterwards in a snarky comment to Oddjob, showing Bond surely hasn't forgotten them.

    Again, I do see the argument @00Beast has where the Moore era (and Bond's reaction to death before and after his era) is a way of showcasing that an agent must be coldly focused on the mission and move on with determination to finish that mission no matter who is lost in the line of duty. Trust me, that thought runs through my head all the time when I am watching the films, and while I can see that argument with the Moore era especially, having Bond doing something campy and over the top after that ruins any tension created by such dramatic death scenes. After Kerim dies you don't see Bond swinging through a jungle shouting like Tarzan or something stupid like that. You see him angered and more focused than ever on the mission, and quite brutally takes out that boiling anger on the man responsible: Red Grant. More moments like that in the Moore era would have been great, where Bond is completely and truly affected by the deaths of his allies and those same moments aren't then ruined by a campy event soon after.
  • Posts: 4,762
    @0Brady: I like your example there about 007 in FRWL over Kerim's death- point taken! The only real instance I can see of when Roger executed such actions over an ally's death would be in OP, when Bond kills Grishka and says, "And that's for 009".
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    00Beast wrote:
    @0Brady: I like your example there about 007 in FRWL over Kerim's death- point taken! The only real instance I can see of when Roger executed such actions over an ally's death would be in OP, when Bond kills Grishka and says, "And that's for 009".

    Indeed. It shows like many other instances that Bond will avenge his lost comrades.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    I was just reading something about TB the other day and I got to thinking that I really depise Kevin McClory for his influence on the world of Bond - I don't mean in a jokey way either. I simply cant abide the guy.
    This! McClory, maybe the most despicable curmudgeon in all of the Bondverse. What a jerk. Concur with all that was spilled in your opening post. Why the British legal system accomodated this carbetbagger to the extent that it did is criminal.

    Beyond McClory, there is very little I like about the Craig re-boot era, but I don't want to expand. It would just enflame all the Craig fans. Rather, enjoy this era while it lasts.
    In the meantime, I shall maintain my vigil, awaiting a worthy successor to Sean and Laz.



  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    timmer wrote:
    I was just reading something about TB the other day and I got to thinking that I really depise Kevin McClory for his influence on the world of Bond - I don't mean in a jokey way either. I simply cant abide the guy.
    This! McClory, maybe the most despicable curmudgeon in all of the Bondverse. What a jerk. Concur with all that was spilled in your opening post. Why the British legal system accomodated this carbetbagger to the extent that it did is criminal.

    Beyond McClory, there is very little I like about the Craig re-boot era, but I don't want to expand. It would just enflame all the Craig fans. Rather, enjoy this era while it lasts.
    In the meantime, I shall maintain my vigil, awaiting a worthy successor to Sean and Laz.




    We had a worthy successor way before Dan. His name is Timothy Dalton.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I really love hating Goldfinger. It's my least favorite movie by a long shot.
  • timmer wrote:
    Beyond McClory, there is very little I like about the Craig re-boot era, but I don't want to expand. It would just enflame all the Craig fans. Rather, enjoy this era while it lasts.
    In the meantime, I shall maintain my vigil, awaiting a worthy successor to Sean and Laz.

    complete rubbish, Dalton and Craig have been great especially Craig who's every bit as good as Connery maybe even better.

    anyway

    1. Brosnan as Bond never worked for me and it shows never listen to what Bond fans want as Bond. Go agaisn't the grain.

    2. Moore as Bond. Love his films but Moore sucked as Bond, none of the darkness or nasty side of Bond Connery or Craig bought to the films.

    3. Goldeneye overrated by too many on here
  • Posts: 7,653
    00Beast wrote:
    @0Brady: I like your example there about 007 in FRWL over Kerim's death- point taken! The only real instance I can see of when Roger executed such actions over an ally's death would be in OP, when Bond kills Grishka and says, "And that's for 009".

    You forgot FYEO when 007 kicked the car after delivering the dove pin to the assassin of his collegue earlier in the movie.
Sign In or Register to comment.