›

The Bond Movies & Actors I Can't Stand (Negativity Only Please)

1…2324262829…42

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    I am still thankful that Spectre ended up as well as it did (which is quite good, in my opinion; I enjoyed it). The leaked script ideas showed nothing but disaster; ludicrous ideas. Logan needs to stay far away from Bond.

    Glad this "negative" thread is back up and running. So here is my negativity for today:

    I hate Bond "turning Japanese" in YOLT so much. It had its moment, that film (including glorious soundtrack and scenery) but then that bit came along and it was darn near a Monty Python moment for me. Terrible! And hard to get out of one's mind.


    In fact, imo, Bond turning Japanese more or less ruins the movie. Up to that point it was on par with TB. Even if the end-game is brilliant, YOLT never really recovers from that Connery as Japanese nonsense.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited March 2016 Posts: 5,080
    4EverBonded wrote: »

    I hate Bond "turning Japanese" in YOLT so much. It had its moment, that film (including glorious soundtrack and scenery) but then that bit came along and it was darn near a Monty Python moment for me. Terrible! And hard to get out of one's mind.

    Have to agree there, @4Ever. If you get rid of that sequence, YOLT becomes a much stronger film.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I love how the moment Bond jumps overboard and swims to the shore it all just washes away.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    ;)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited March 2016 Posts: 12,480
    Oh I really think it was them making his eyes look Japanese, that made me want to scream out loud in dismay. So foolish....!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    Sean Connery himself probably hated that aspect of YOLT so much that he felt he would be more convincing player characters of different nationalities while keeping his thick scottish accent. He wasn't wrong - they did give him an Oscar for playing an Irish immigrant with a thick scottish accent.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    I hate the lasers in MR... and Jaws as well.
    But not as much as I hate that slide whistle.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    I neither hate nor love it. It just is.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    edited March 2016 Posts: 16,163
    I've never been too bothered by the Japanese disguise- except that the sequence is unintentionally funny.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Just trying to turn a tall Scot into Japanese ... and the way they applied the eye pieces; just no to the way it was done. Makes me shudder.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I just feel like it looked silly. That's all I can say. I know it's in the novel. I think I did not enjoy seeing how they did it because it just looked ridiculous to me. Just my reaction. I understand the storyline. I don't know how to improve it in general (this aspect of the story) but I think I would have cut out the entire scene showing the disguising/transformation.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    The idea of Bond going Japanese never bothered me but the execution in the film is poor. I can't see any noticeable difference other than the Spock wig.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I'm not really sure if I would have liked all that to be honest. Though what would have improved the film for me a bit was to focus less on the Ninja training and Bond going Japanese and have him meet Blofeld sooner in the film. The film spends so much time getting us to the volcano that by the time we the viewers and Bond meet Blofeld he's barely in it. I think a better confrontation would have been top priority.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    Only thing I HATE in YOLT is the Volcano erupting. The effect is bad and the physics are worse.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I would have added more at a Sumo match and where is any Kabuki? How splendid that would have been! Still hoping for Kabuki in a Bond film in my lifetime. (I would have added quite a bit more, to be honest).

    I would have liked Bond to meet Blofeld sooner; I agree with you on that, Murdock. Ninja training I enjoy. I guess I wouldn't mind if they had showed him looking like trying to fit in later if done without showing the process.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    I HATE that Donald Pleasance looks shorter than Connery in YOLT.
    I know I said only the volcano thing, but.... I lied.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I di
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's really bad when he is standing right in front of Bond and has to crane his neck upward in order to threaten Connery. It's pathetic, I was just watching that clip (and also hating it) as part of a documentary earlier this evening.

    Yes that's certainly something I noticed when I've re-watched YOLT. Maybe they should have kept Pleasence seated or filmed him further away from Connery so that the height difference wasn't so obvious.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    They should have put him on a stool. :))
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    Posts: 337
    Donald Pleasance isn't threatening at all the moment he appears on-screen.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Okay- here's my negativity. I HATE the fact that the series was re-booted for the 21st century audience, and that too many people I run into see Craig's films as the be all end all of Bond films. They won't even look at a Connery or Moore film assuming because they were made over 30 years ago they MUST be cheesy. The re-boot idea was one of the series worst decisions IMO. Certainly they could have done a faithful version of CR and it NOT be a re-boot. There is nowhere in the book that states it was his first assignment. He is only reminded of his first mission and talks about it after the torture. I won't even get started on how I feel about the Craig gunbarrels.....

    Don't really see how it being a reboot it not makes much difference to how people view Craig in relation to other Bonds. It's not like there's many films that refer back to any of the previous ones anyway.

    Take out all the stuff about it being his first mission (as despite Babs and MGW constantly banging the point home in yhe publicity you are quite right that there is nothing in the novel which states that CR is his first mission) and it would just been a new actor playing Bond which we have had many times before.

    Whilst I don't like it, I don't think them stating that its his first mission is that bad it's worth getting annoyed over. I certainly prefer it to them putting in some reference to DAD.

  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,163
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Okay- here's my negativity. I HATE the fact that the series was re-booted for the 21st century audience, and that too many people I run into see Craig's films as the be all end all of Bond films. They won't even look at a Connery or Moore film assuming because they were made over 30 years ago they MUST be cheesy. The re-boot idea was one of the series worst decisions IMO. Certainly they could have done a faithful version of CR and it NOT be a re-boot. There is nowhere in the book that states it was his first assignment. He is only reminded of his first mission and talks about it after the torture. I won't even get started on how I feel about the Craig gunbarrels.....

    Don't really see how it being a reboot it not makes much difference to how people view Craig in relation to other Bonds. It's not like there's many films that refer back to any of the previous ones anyway.

    Take out all the stuff about it being his first mission (as despite Babs and MGW constantly banging the point home in yhe publicity you are quite right that there is nothing in the novel which states that CR is his first mission) and it would just been a new actor playing Bond which we have had many times before.

    Whilst I don't like it, I don't think them stating that its his first mission is that bad it's worth getting annoyed over. I certainly prefer it to them putting in some reference to DAD.

    I guess what bothers me about it is that as a re-boot it is in a sense, looked at as a new series. So many people I run into brought up on the Craig era often flatly refuse to visit the other films. Someone asked me when SF came out if they should re-watch QoS to understand what was going on. I can honestly say before the re-boot that had never happened before. The previous films really don't refer back other, and the Craigs are the only ones where this is an issue. I told the person to skip QoS and look at LALD or GoldenEye instead as there were subtle homages to those films. This person wasn't remotely interested. Still, I suppose there are people, who, during the Brosnan era probably refused to watch any of the Connery films.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Okay- here's my negativity. I HATE the fact that the series was re-booted for the 21st century audience, and that too many people I run into see Craig's films as the be all end all of Bond films. They won't even look at a Connery or Moore film assuming because they were made over 30 years ago they MUST be cheesy. The re-boot idea was one of the series worst decisions IMO. Certainly they could have done a faithful version of CR and it NOT be a re-boot. There is nowhere in the book that states it was his first assignment. He is only reminded of his first mission and talks about it after the torture. I won't even get started on how I feel about the Craig gunbarrels.....

    Don't really see how it being a reboot it not makes much difference to how people view Craig in relation to other Bonds. It's not like there's many films that refer back to any of the previous ones anyway.

    Take out all the stuff about it being his first mission (as despite Babs and MGW constantly banging the point home in yhe publicity you are quite right that there is nothing in the novel which states that CR is his first mission) and it would just been a new actor playing Bond which we have had many times before.

    Whilst I don't like it, I don't think them stating that its his first mission is that bad it's worth getting annoyed over. I certainly prefer it to them putting in some reference to DAD.

    I guess what bothers me about it is that as a re-boot it is in a sense, looked at as a new series. So many people I run into brought up on the Craig era often flatly refuse to visit the other films. Someone asked me when SF came out if they should re-watch QoS to understand what was going on. I can honestly say before the re-boot that had never happened before. The previous films really don't refer back other, and the Craigs are the only ones where this is an issue. I told the person to skip QoS and look at LALD or GoldenEye instead as there were subtle homages to those films. This person wasn't remotely interested. Still, I suppose there are people, who, during the Brosnan era probably refused to watch any of the Connery films.

    Well then it seems that what actually bothers you is continuity from film to film and not the reboot per se.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,163
    I very much prefer standalone Bonds.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Brosnan was a wasted asset. The scripts he was given make him the weakest 007 in the series.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Brosnan Craig was a wasted asset. The scripts he was given make him the weakest 007 in the series.

    Works with Craig as well.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Brosnan Craig was a wasted asset. The scripts he was given make him the weakest 007 in the series.

    Works with Craig as well.

    Laughable. CR alone makes this a laughable comment.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Brosnan was a wasted asset. The scripts he was given make him the weakest 007 in the series.
    I'd just say Brosnan was a wasted asset. The rest is unnecessary. He didn't live up to potential, at least in my view. I had high expectations of him, but by the end of it I wanted him out.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    suavejmf wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Brosnan Craig was a wasted asset. The scripts he was given make him the weakest 007 in the series.

    Works with Craig as well.

    Laughable. CR alone makes this a laughable comment.

    CR (which is as fine as GE) doesn't make the total mess of SF, QOS go away. And many complain about the SP script as well if not more.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    To say that wouldn't express my opinion though. I believe his films to be the weakest. I too had high expectations of him/ his films, but by the end of it I wanted him out.
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    Posts: 337
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I very much prefer standalone Bonds.

    This, so much this. I can hardly stand these story arcs linked together (and not particularly well) by a chain of films that probably would work better on their own.
Sign In or Register to comment.