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
You could adapt the opening of MR where Bond is doing gun training and gets beaten by 009, taking the place of an instructor type.
I personally wasn't making a comparison with those movies. I prefer Bonds to have larger gaps than those franchises. I was simply making the point that it is possible to make films in those time frames. I'm not sure anyone was actually making comparisons.
Not sure I quite follow your logic. Are you saying that because Cubby made some stupid decisions Babs gets a free pass?
Just as Blofeld in drag, Kung Fu schoolgirls and double take pigeon are a disgrace why shouldn't we say that the invisible car, CGI tsunami and brother Ernst are all shite as well?
God knows EON are better than having studio execs like Disney in charge but let's not kid ourselves that they are perfect.
Yes they deliver some excellent films but they have also made some shocking decisions over the years and we shouldn't be scared of being accused of some sort of 'EON disloyalty' not to call them out on these.
Are you referring to this post:
If that's 'outlining clearly' that EON are not perfect you really must give me the name of your oculist.
It's not hard for me to see in the slightest. EON is the buffer that stops the series turning into a disaster and having the studios do things like create black Bond, gay Bond etc and thank Christ we have them. The day the studios get full control (and it will happen) will be bleak indeed.
Where I can't agree with you is where you say they made questionable decisions 'in the past'.
Well Blofeld as stepbrother I wouldn't count as the past. It's all well and good to claim they have learned from mistakes such as DAD, and certainly since the Brosnan era the quality has risen impressively, yet they are still more than capable of making shocking errors of judgement such as the final act of SP so plus ca change.
Compared to the Brosnan era there's not that much to complain about these days, but that only makes it all the more infuriating that we still find ourselves having to debate them committing basic schoolboy errors as they did with SP.
This is just a point where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quite a bang up job.
I'd be happy to take the Pepsi challenge with you on that one over stepbrothergate. I would fancy that the vast majority of the community would not be willing to endorse it as glowingly as your good self.
The November 2018 release date for Bond 25 is in the US but, for anyone living in the UK, an October 2018 release date for the 25th instalment. Okay :-)
For what it's worth I'm with you. They have gotten much better about glaringly obvious missteps. No one is perfect, but EON has taken Bond to another level with Craig's era, critically and financially. This is the 2nd Golden Age; without question.
I realize I'm probably in the minority in that view, but that's how I feel.
Agreed except IMO SP was a significant misstep.
As much as I admire and appreciate Brosnan being a lifelong fan of the series it seems regrettable that his tenure didn't reach the critical heights that Craig's did.
Seems honestly like the Brosnan's films were on a learning curve.
But to give credit where credit is due without Brosnan making Bond cool again especially in NA we may not have gotten a Craig era or at least not like the one we got.
1. Sorry but I don't count the Connery era as the Golden age of Bond as I find Goldfinger extremly boring and You Only Live twice ... Well Connery just doesn't care and it shows (I find it telling that most fans would prefer two more from Lazenby rather then the last two from Connery)
2. Every one is human. Has Babs made mistakes? Yes abosultly. Has her father? Yes
3. Spectre wasn't really that bad. Is the step brother angle stupid yes but again it's EON reacting to the marvel movies (specifically winter soldier) and as I have stressed before Silva and Trevellyan played up the brothers in arms angle way higher then the few comments Blofeld made in Spectre (come on Trevellyan saying he was always better and the whole James and I shared everything absolutely everything is well creepy to say the least)
4. The Brosnan era wasn't as bad as people claim. Sure they were more popcorn driven then the Craig era but honestly couldn't the same be claimed about a lot of the Moore era I count on one hand the amount of serious espionage films Moore did as 007 (live and let die for your eyes only and Octopussy even though I still feel Dalton could of made A View to a kill work it is a very strange and out there film) and does that make those films bad no not really.
Over all I am willing to give EON the benefit of the doubt I don't think the next film will make the same mistakes as Spectre and who knows it might beat casino Royale in terms of my favorite bond films.
Agreed, completely.
It's the most iconic, classic Bond film in my eyes. Used to find it slow and dull in parts, but I've truly appreciated and loved it over the last year.
You could make a drinking game out of how much he gets knocked out in the film and put in a compromising position with the villains over and over again. Oh look, Oddjob knocked Bond out and now Jill is dead. Oh look, they've got Bond in a corner, Tilly is dead and, oh, now he's hit a wall. Oh look, Bond's actually escaped his jail-oh no, he's caught again.
Of course every Bond film has moments of him being besieged by enemies, but in those moments he's actively doing something to warrant being pursued, becoming a kinetic, dynamic figure that keeps moving and reacting. In GF Bond feels like a brick wall that stands still while people through rocks at him, he seems out of his depth, and for his pains he spends most of the film a glorified prisoner of Goldfinger's and fails every attempt at sabotage beyond his performance in the barn scene that is just cringeworthy on all levels. Pussy is the real hero, while Bond time and time again fails every opportunity to be the savior, and only succeeds because his magical little soldier has superpowers that makes hardcore lesbians turn into the socially accepted heterosexual, baby birthing people all women were expected to be, and blah, blah, blah.
When I watch a Bond film, Bond is my hero, and I want to support what he's doing. I adore Connery's Bond passionately, but how he is portrayed in GF makes me think, "wait, why am I looking up to this guy?" He's written horribly, just horribly there and the social commentary stuffed in there in regards to Pussy and how she is developed is just offensive and disgusting looking back now, but undeniably a very 50s/60s way of dealing with things of that nature, ie. very poorly.
I'll have to give GF a rewatch again sometime soon, but I think it's forever going to be stuck third from the bottom for me way behind FRWL, DN and TB. Better performances, more intriguing stories, and a Bond I can get behind. The Aston's debut, Bond's amazing Prince of Wales three-piece suit and the traditions that excuse it from serious critical analysis can't save it for me.
Goldfinger isn't two hours long...