›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…107108110112113…717

Comments

  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Birdleson wrote:
    Wint and Kidd were in the book and more clearly labeled as homosexuals.

    It was mentioned in the book but it was really brought out in the film. That pair was quite grotesque--they were gross looking, had those stupid smiles, completed each other's sentences, one of them was always spraying himself with perfume and they were quite psychotic. Bond films have always been rooted in a conservative ideology, and I wonder if Wint and Kidd would have been portrayed as they were if it hadn't have been for the backlash against Stonewall/gay rights that had just gotten underway. They were supposed to make the audience feel uncomfortable and when Bond killed them, it was a symbolic victory for heterosexual hegemony.

    Utter nonsense. If only it were so.

    And how is that analysis "nonsense." What is your take on Wint and Kidd?
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Bond is out of the institution, but still part of it. He's a rebel, but still part of the system.
    The only way to do what's right effectively in fantasy IMO.
    The only other recourse would be sheep-like acceptance or outright revolution. And both make for excellent drama in a socially relevant film, or stressful/violent life in reality, but no place for a proper James Bond movie.

    With Bond, audiences can have their cake and eat it too. Bond is a rebel, but still part of the institution. He ticks off M and the Minister of Defense (don't muck it up again 007!) yet he always saves the day in the end. Even if he goes off the rails (LTK and QOS) and is expelled or resigns, he is still working for the best interests of the West and in the end is welcomed back with open arms.

    You assume rebellion is Leftist when it's not. It all depends upon who's in charge. Currently--and probably for a very long time to come--the establishment is Leftist. When I rebel against the exactions of the Left, I am hardly being a Leftist.

    I do not assume that at all and I don't know where that's coming from. "The establishment is Leftist"? What?! How?

  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    edited February 2014 Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Does Bond say "time for a station break" just in case the unconscious Germans can't understand British colloquialism?
    Elliot was American, and he's sort of talking to him in his joke.

    That's the worst excuse I've ever heard plus Carver was British born (Hong Kong) not American.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,997
    WillyGalore wrote:
    That's the worst excuse ever plus Carver was British born (Hong Kong) not American.
    Nailed. That's what I get for not really think a post through before hitting that button.
    Thanks Willy. :\">
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    chrisisall wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    That's the worst excuse ever plus Carver was British born (Hong Kong) not American.
    Nailed. That's what I get for not really think a post through before hitting that button.
    Thanks Willy. :\">

    That actually made me laugh. Fair play to you for trying though. ;-)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,997
    WillyGalore wrote:
    That actually made me laugh. Fair play to you for trying though. ;-)
    Well, thanks for lifting up my mood a bit with that last comment. Or perhaps I should say 'elevating'.

    ;))
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Reading-too-much-into-this ALERT

    I don't think so. Bond films, at their core, are ideologically conservative and meant to reassure a nervous public that the future is in good hands, thanks to 007.

    With the exception of QoS, which had a Leftist bent, and SF, which indeed comes over as a bit conservative, the Bond films are apolitical.

    They are not apolitical in the least. Just a handful of examples off the top of my head:

    DN- Government House in Jamaica run by subservient natives.
    GF- The opening scene in which Bond stops a South American drug lord who "finances revolutions with heroin flavored bananas." Later, Bond stops a plot by the Chinese working with Goldfinger who want to cause "economic chaos in the West" by detonating a nuclear bomb at Fort Knox.
    DAF- The diamond mine is run like a quasi-plantation, with the happy natives doing the grunt work for their benevolent British overlords.

    DN--No political message at all. It was reality.


    GF--You make the mistake, alas, all too common among Leftists, of thinking any plot device in which the villains are a protected group (usually minorities of one sort or another) represents a political attack on that group as a whole. This is not rational analysis, it is ideologically-driven paranoia.

    DAF--We hardly know enough about the diamond mine to say that it was a quasi-plantation or that the natives were "happy." And BTW, when the black diamond smuggler smiles, that is not a political statement; it is a little thing called humor, which sadly, eludes the vast majority of Leftists every time.

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Bond is out of the institution, but still part of it. He's a rebel, but still part of the system.
    The only way to do what's right effectively in fantasy IMO.
    The only other recourse would be sheep-like acceptance or outright revolution. And both make for excellent drama in a socially relevant film, or stressful/violent life in reality, but no place for a proper James Bond movie.

    With Bond, audiences can have their cake and eat it too. Bond is a rebel, but still part of the institution. He ticks off M and the Minister of Defense (don't muck it up again 007!) yet he always saves the day in the end. Even if he goes off the rails (LTK and QOS) and is expelled or resigns, he is still working for the best interests of the West and in the end is welcomed back with open arms.

    You assume rebellion is Leftist when it's not. It all depends upon who's in charge. Currently--and probably for a very long time to come--the establishment is Leftist. When I rebel against the exactions of the Left, I am hardly being a Leftist.

    I do not assume that at all and I don't know where that's coming from. "The establishment is Leftist"? What?! How?

    How not? If I were to explain to you all the ways in which the Left has a hammerlock on the Western world, it would take 24 hours of solid writing, and I just don't have the time or the interest to do so.

  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    I'm not only leftist, but Communist, and I just enjoy the Bond novels and films as they are. The rest is bullshit.

    Now, back to the ramblings and fights over silly political issues.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    edited February 2014 Posts: 381
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Reading-too-much-into-this ALERT

    I don't think so. Bond films, at their core, are ideologically conservative and meant to reassure a nervous public that the future is in good hands, thanks to 007.

    With the exception of QoS, which had a Leftist bent, and SF, which indeed comes over as a bit conservative, the Bond films are apolitical.

    They are not apolitical in the least. Just a handful of examples off the top of my head:

    DN- Government House in Jamaica run by subservient natives.
    GF- The opening scene in which Bond stops a South American drug lord who "finances revolutions with heroin flavored bananas." Later, Bond stops a plot by the Chinese working with Goldfinger who want to cause "economic chaos in the West" by detonating a nuclear bomb at Fort Knox.
    DAF- The diamond mine is run like a quasi-plantation, with the happy natives doing the grunt work for their benevolent British overlords.

    DN--No political message at all. It was reality.


    GF--You make the mistake, alas, all too common among Leftists, of thinking any plot device in which the villains are a protected group (usually minorities of one sort or another) represents a political attack on that group as a whole. This is not rational analysis, it is ideologically-driven paranoia.

    DAF--We hardly know enough about the diamond mine to say that it was a quasi-plantation or that the natives were "happy." And BTW, when the black diamond smuggler smiles, that is not a political statement; it is a little thing called humor, which sadly, eludes the vast majority of Leftists every time.

    You just don't want to peel the onion. If you really don't think that Bond films (or any other films) have a political message and are merely entertainment, we don't really have anything further to discuss. I would suggest the book Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films by James Chapman. He does a superb job of pointing out the political undertones of the films.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,009
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Reading-too-much-into-this ALERT

    I don't think so. Bond films, at their core, are ideologically conservative and meant to reassure a nervous public that the future is in good hands, thanks to 007.

    With the exception of QoS, which had a Leftist bent, and SF, which indeed comes over as a bit conservative, the Bond films are apolitical.

    They are not apolitical in the least. Just a handful of examples off the top of my head:

    DN- Government House in Jamaica run by subservient natives.
    GF- The opening scene in which Bond stops a South American drug lord who "finances revolutions with heroin flavored bananas." Later, Bond stops a plot by the Chinese working with Goldfinger who want to cause "economic chaos in the West" by detonating a nuclear bomb at Fort Knox.
    DAF- The diamond mine is run like a quasi-plantation, with the happy natives doing the grunt work for their benevolent British overlords.

    DN--No political message at all. It was reality.


    GF--You make the mistake, alas, all too common among Leftists, of thinking any plot device in which the villains are a protected group (usually minorities of one sort or another) represents a political attack on that group as a whole. This is not rational analysis, it is ideologically-driven paranoia.

    DAF--We hardly know enough about the diamond mine to say that it was a quasi-plantation or that the natives were "happy." And BTW, when the black diamond smuggler smiles, that is not a political statement; it is a little thing called humor, which sadly, eludes the vast majority of Leftists every time.

    You just don't want to peel the onion. If you really don't think that Bond films (or any other films) have a political message and are merely entertainment, we don't really have anything further to discuss. I would suggest the book Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films by James Chapman. He does a superb job of pointing out the political undertones of the films.

    Awfully sorry, but I still think is silly. Bond novels and films are just a reflex of its era, and it comes naturally that political stances are there, as they are in all corners of culture. I think that have this kind of almost-flamewars/arguments for these reasons in a cinema forum...

    Well, it's just an opinion. I guess I'm wrong. It's only that I don't like flamewars between people united by a shared feeling, like our love for the 007 series.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    I don't want a flamewar--I'm just stating what I think the readings are for some of the films. And of course the films are a " a reflex of its era," which is what I was trying to say.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    LegateDamar wrote:
    I don't want a flamewar--I'm just stating what I think the readings are for some of the films. And of course the films are a " a reflex of its era," which is what I was trying to say.

    It's just that our fellow member here is getting a bit heated up and, well, I was afraid that there was a flamewar incoming... Sorry for getting in the middle.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    bigladiesman wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    I don't want a flamewar--I'm just stating what I think the readings are for some of the films. And of course the films are a " a reflex of its era," which is what I was trying to say.

    It's just that our fellow member here is getting a bit heated up and, well, I was afraid that there was a flamewar incoming... Sorry for getting in the middle.

    Nah, no need to apologize. I like talking about politics in the Bond films. I'm not trying to say that I have the final word on it. People are free to disagree with me and offer their own take.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,997
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    I don't know where that's coming from. "The establishment is Leftist"? What?! How?
    How not? If I were to explain to you all the ways in which the Left has a hammerlock on the Western world, it would take 24 hours of solid writing

    @Murdock Hey, remember that Star Trek episode with the half-white half-black guys? Like Lokai & Bele, these two are so far towards the ends of their respective spectrums, they're actually the same! :))

    Guys, let this be your last battlefield. ;)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,384
    chrisisall wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    LegateDamar wrote:
    I don't know where that's coming from. "The establishment is Leftist"? What?! How?
    How not? If I were to explain to you all the ways in which the Left has a hammerlock on the Western world, it would take 24 hours of solid writing

    @Murdock Hey, remember that Star Trek episode with the half-white half-black guys? Like Lokai & Bele, these two are so far towards the ends of their respective spectrums, they're actually the same! :))

    Guys, let this be your last battlefield. ;)

    BRAIN AND BRAIN WHAT IS BRAIN!?! =))
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ok, who woke Khan? He'd been politically dormant for a while, then someone had to reference leftist rhetoric. It's like red rag to a bull. Please, let's keep it Bond. I've been there and it's a cyclical nightmare. Everyone in this thread has interesting things to say, regards Bond, politics and religion are redundant in these parts. It always ends badly and is not pleasant for the vast majority.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,997
    RC7 wrote:
    It always ends badly and is not pleasant for the vast majority.
    Roger that.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    RC7 wrote:
    Ok, who woke Khan? He'd been politically dormant for a while, then someone had to reference leftist rhetoric. It's like red rag to a bull. Please, let's keep it Bond. I've been there and it's a cyclical nightmare. Everyone in this thread has interesting things to say, regards Bond, politics and religion are redundant in these parts. It always ends badly and is not pleasant for the vast majority.

    Politics and Bond movies go together like, as Forrest Gump would say, peas and carrots.

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,652
    Hmm... Though I don't agree with this whatsoever, I'm surprised I didn't find any trolls here saying Connery is the worst Bond. That'd be like the most controversial opinion ever if legit. It seems that Brosnan is the most divisive Bond, at least on this site.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    FoxRox wrote:
    Hmm... Though I don't agree with this whatsoever, I'm surprised I didn't find any trolls here saying Connery is the worst Bond. That'd be like the most controversial opinion ever if legit. It seems that Brosnan is the most divisive Bond, at least on this site.

    Outside of this forum or among non-diehards (the casual fans), Dalton gets the most amount of crap. If the subject of James Bond comes up, almost always someone says "Dalton sucked." I don't think most of them have ever heard of Lazenby.
  • bigladiesmanbigladiesman
    Posts: 1,009
    FoxRox wrote:
    Hmm... Though I don't agree with this whatsoever, I'm surprised I didn't find any trolls here saying Connery is the worst Bond. That'd be like the most controversial opinion ever if legit. It seems that Brosnan is the most divisive Bond, at least on this site.

    Well, there's no accounting for taste, they say...

    tumblr_lvp2luc9bJ1qgzm0mo1_500.gif
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,652
    LegateDamar wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    Hmm... Though I don't agree with this whatsoever, I'm surprised I didn't find any trolls here saying Connery is the worst Bond. That'd be like the most controversial opinion ever if legit. It seems that Brosnan is the most divisive Bond, at least on this site.

    Outside of this forum or among non-diehards (the casual fans), Dalton gets the most amount of crap. If the subject of James Bond comes up, almost always someone says "Dalton sucked." I don't think most of them have ever heard of Lazenby.

    From what I've seen (and I've seen a lot of actor rankings), Lazenby always gets 6th on other websites for ranking the Bond actors. Among casual fans, I wouldn't know as much I guess. Personally I like all 6 to some extent, some more than others. I know a lot of people that hate Dalton and a lot that think he's was a Top 3 Bond though.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    I thought that Dalton was a superb Bond and a lot of the fans on this site and others feel the same way. I think that there is a perception with the general public that he was weak.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,652
    LegateDamar wrote:
    I thought that Dalton was a superb Bond and a lot of the fans on this site and others feel the same way. I think that there is a perception with the general public that he was weak.

    Being totally honest he is my least favorite of the 6 actors, but I still thought he was good. All of them have their own merits; I'm not sure why, he just didn't stand out to me as much as he did for most.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,997
    LegateDamar wrote:
    I thought that Dalton was a superb Bond and a lot of the fans on this site and others feel the same way. I think that there is a perception with the general public that he was weak.
    The general perception may be from the fact that he played a human Bond, not a 'super-spy' version that they'd become accustomed to.

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,652
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    I've grown to appreciate Lazenby over time. I still think that his performance was a little stiff and flat, but he did a good job for someone with little acting experience.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    I know quite a few people who are not Bond fans as such, who are quite fond of Dalton, I think a lot of the negativity was created by the media after he left the part.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    identigraph wrote:
    FoxRox wrote:
    I thought Lazenby was the most human Bond by far. Maybe Dalton second-most, but Lazenby definitely felt the most human to me.

    Am I alone in thinking that people over think Lazenby's performance? I'm not sure he intentionally brought anything to the part other than turning up and reading his lines.

    As MJ once said, you are not alone. It's all part of what I term 'The Romanticisation of George Lazenby'. Average, at best, with zero panache.
Sign In or Register to comment.