Controversial opinions about Bond films

11617192122707

Comments

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Yeah, but his drinking makes him funny.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Yeah, but his drinking makes him funny.
    Anti_Binge_Drinking_Poster_2_by_krimsongrace57.jpg
    And it isn't cool when Bond does it either! ;)
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Now now now, when a real person does it, it's a problem. When a fictional character who's supposed to be a funny drinker does it, it's funny.
  • Posts: 645
    :-t
    Well... just a little factoid here...
    Iron Man the movie was way better then Batman....
    Even the concept as you were explaining... =;
    Let's just break it down real quick...
    Tony Stark doesn't have to hide his face, living in the shadows, he just kicks their @$$.
    He also has way better gadgets and being a playboy is a bad thing? Um... [NEWSFLASH] No, it's not. And then.... well you know what, I'll just stop there.. theres no point.
    There's no contest.

    2008s best Action film, Iron Man.
    Second QOS.

    That Batman movie was overrated, and wouldn't have been near as popular as is was if Heath hadn't died in real life before the opening... Sad over all, but that doesn't make the movie better than another just for sympathy. Sure, you may not think of it as sympathy, but how else did you hear about it in the first place..

    [ON THE NEWS] "Heath Ledger, whos playing the villain in the next upcoming Batman film has died today.... "
    Don't forget Iron Man. That movie kicked ass.

    Tony Stark has nothing on Bruce Wayne. Both rich boys, but Tony is the shallow playboy drinker for real, while Bruce only uses that as a facade to hide his real identity alongside being tormented by the deaths of his parents that drive his vigilante conquest. I'll take Bruce over Tony any day of the week.

    Had to be vented.
    Moving on.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    jolearon wrote:
    :-t
    Well... just a little factoid here...
    Iron Man the movie was way better then Batman....
    Even the concept as you were explaining... =;
    Let's just break it down real quick...
    Tony Stark doesn't have to hide his face, living in the shadows, he just kicks their @$$.
    He also has way better gadgets and being a playboy is a bad thing? Um... [NEWSFLASH] No, it's not. And then.... well you know what, I'll just stop there.. theres no point.
    There's no contest.

    2008s best Action film, Iron Man.
    Second QOS.

    That Batman movie was overrated, and wouldn't have been near as popular as is was if Heath hadn't died in real life before the opening... Sad over all, but that doesn't make the movie better than another just for sympathy. Sure, you may not think of it as sympathy, but how else did you hear about it in the first place..

    [ON THE NEWS] "Heath Ledger, whos playing the villain in the next upcoming Batman film has died today.... "
    Don't forget Iron Man. That movie kicked ass.

    Tony Stark has nothing on Bruce Wayne. Both rich boys, but Tony is the shallow playboy drinker for real, while Bruce only uses that as a facade to hide his real identity alongside being tormented by the deaths of his parents that drive his vigilante conquest. I'll take Bruce over Tony any day of the week.

    Had to be vented.
    Moving on.

    First of all, The Dark Knight isn't even an action film. Calling it that is an insult. Iron Man can shoot off rockets all day, but no comic book movie franchise can match the depth and drama that the Nolan Batman films embody. And secondly, saying that TDK wouldn't be as popular if Heath wouldn't have died is absolute tripe. TDK isn't this popular because of Heath dying, that's complete hogwash. It is renowned because Heath gave a truly chilling, haunting, frightening, and down-right nightmarish performance. TDK is better than all the rest because it took itself seriously and finally gave us a comic book film that, like Batman Begins, surmounted the tropes of the comics lore and showed us a superhero film can be just as serious and deep as the award winning drama. TDK gives us an ordinary man fighting to save his loved ones and the very city of Gotham from a crazy psychopath who stops at nothing to watch the city burn. It is because of Heath taking the role so seriously that we get such a terror-inducing and memorable portrayal of Joker. TDK isn't held with such high regard out of sympathy. That's ludicrous. Heath's masterpiece IS this film, all culminating in a short life, but a life that showed us how much talent he had. TDK may be labeled by some as a simple action film, but that is so wrong. We have drama, emotion, depth, complexity, horror, and the feeling that it is all happening in front of us, like we are in Gotham feeling the pain of the city. TDK showed all the comic books films preceding and following it that they need to step their game up. Nolan, Bale and company will keep the Oscar seats warm, because no comic book film will ever reach their level. Heath put his heart and soul into that performance, and calling his acclaim sympathetic and only due to the fact that he died is complete treason. He deserves every accolade, every single plaque and medal. He deserved that Oscar dead or alive, and made a legacy for himself that will outlive us all through this brilliant performance. His time as the Joker may have been short, but we have that film to watch over and over, to show us what it looks like when an actor truly gives all of himself to a role. He has been cemented forever in the minds of Batman fans and filmgoers alike, making us smile at his craft, shriek at his horrific portrayal, and clap in the honor of him as the credits roll all in the space of a few hours. I have never sat in the theatre and cheered for the villain, but with TDK I couldn't help but smile at how happy Heath's devotion to his work in the acting profession made me. His legacy will truly outlive him, and deservedly so. And THAT isn't overrated.
  • Posts: 5,634
    This is about James Bond isn't it, we seem to have gone off down a different avenue somewhere..

    I never expected this to have run so far when it first appeared a week or so ago

    All the controversial opinions about Bond I think of right now have most likely been said either by myself or others so can't really think of any fresh input to add right now. I'll say anyway, right or wrong, Tina Turner if given the opportunity to do a Bond theme should of had the job in the 1980s at the very latest, 1995 for me was somehow a little too late on the timeline. Izabella Scorupco was a sometimes irritating Bond girl, Xenia was not the least bit intimidating, and I genuinely can't stand the end Eric Serra score at the closing titles 'Experience of Nausea'

    The second half of Tomorrow Never Dies becomes almost void and redundant once Bond leaves for Asia, i.e. I simply lose interest more often than not

    The teaser for The World Is Not Enough could quite possibly be the best and biggest PTS of the entire Bond series, Yes, I'm fairly confident there

    That chap who kept popping up several times, can't remember his real name, but he was in the PTS of You Only Live Twice at the Houston control center, was in The Spy Who Loved Me when Moore sets the two missiles to collide with each other from the submarines, and there was another one or two examples in one or two other Bond films where he popped up, well I just got a bit irritated with him eventually

    The tanker truck chase in LTK goes on far too long and is quite dull actually, I only like the bit at the conclusion usually to see Sanchez get burned at the end for all the atrocities he perpetrated

    Just some other examples there, mentioned before or otherwise





  • Posts: 5,745
    Yep.

    Controversial opinion: Its impossible to keep Bond fans civil. Which I guess displays our passion ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Yep.

    Controversial opinion: Its impossible to keep Bond fans civil. Which I guess displays our passion ;)
    Indeed. And it has become apparent that "this is just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it buster!" is the safeword on this forum.
  • Posts: 5,745
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Yep.

    Controversial opinion: Its impossible to keep Bond fans civil. Which I guess displays our passion ;)
    Indeed. And it has become apparent that "this is just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it buster!" is the safeword on this forum.

    Then just start ignoring them. I got on here when I got home form work, and this thread had 48 'unread' comments. I skimmed through them, and then posted mine. Not worth the time.
  • Posts: 5,634
    What are you refering to ?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    No worries :)>-

    As for CR, it just didn't felt like a Bond movie - no one liners, no gadget, no Q, no Moneypenny, no Bond theme, no gun barrel at the start....

    I think people's views on CR largely depend on whether they think the "formula" is what makes a good Bond film.

  • Posts: 5,745
    you

    Who?

  • edited March 2012 Posts: 1,082
    Practically all the 'flaws' you list are taken pretty much straight from a book called Casino Royale by some bloke called Ian Fleming.

    You may think that Roger is the best Bond and like his over the top romps best - thats your perogative but please dont start making statements that CR is unbondian as you will just come across as a fool.

    It is your taste in Roger Moores comedy adeventures for the whole family that is unbondian not CR.

    I adore a bit of Roger and would never slag him off as he saved the series and his films are never less than entertaining (well apart from TMWTGG which is less in every department!) but there is a world of difference between the world Fleming created and the universe of double taking pigeons. By definition Flemings novels are Bondian and things that deviate from them are not. As CR, in its second half, sticks pretty religiously to the novel then it is a reasonable point to argue that it is more Bondian than most of Rogers films which average not even one scene from Fleming per film.

    First of all, because something is in a book doesn´t make it better. I still do not like drama.

    What I count as Bondian is what I love and recognise from the movie series that I have watched so many times that it´s impossible to even count the viewings. The books I see as a completely different thing. I respect them as original but don´t understand why Bond is supposed to follow those old outings. Fleming sold the film rights after all.

    As an example, AC/DC´s first album in Australia was vastly different to their later outings, but it was the original. After that they have had a sound that they are recognised and loved for. It is the so called "AC/DC-sound". It wouldn´t be too bright to say "Back In Black is unAC/DC (if you understand the word I made up)", the original was different and therefore only that is the real AC/DC. Everything after that is not the true AC/DC. Perhaps not a fair comparision, but it was the first one I could come up with.

    And the Batman movie, "The Dark Knight" I don´t like. Too much trying to be modern and gritty with too much drama, dark lens and whatever. It was also too long. Transporter 3 was number 1, followed by the good film that is QOS. TDK was ok.

  • Posts: 1,052
    The PTS in Casino Royale looked cheap and could have been made for an ITV drama?
  • Posts: 1,082
    I don´t disagree with you or anything, but I think you will suffer for that one. CR-lovers have no mercy.
  • Posts: 645
    Batman movies are all the same, action movie, whatever.
    How many Iron Man movies have you seen over the years...
    (guess they got it right)
    DC FAIL. (unless you have a celebrity death to promote your film)
    Marvel. Win.
    Just my opinion. The End.
    jolearon wrote:
    :-t
    Well... just a little factoid here...
    Iron Man the movie was way better then Batman....
    Even the concept as you were explaining... =;
    Let's just break it down real quick...
    Tony Stark doesn't have to hide his face, living in the shadows, he just kicks their @$$.
    He also has way better gadgets and being a playboy is a bad thing? Um... [NEWSFLASH] No, it's not. And then.... well you know what, I'll just stop there.. theres no point.
    There's no contest.

    2008s best Action film, Iron Man.
    Second QOS.

    That Batman movie was overrated, and wouldn't have been near as popular as is was if Heath hadn't died in real life before the opening... Sad over all, but that doesn't make the movie better than another just for sympathy. Sure, you may not think of it as sympathy, but how else did you hear about it in the first place..

    [ON THE NEWS] "Heath Ledger, whos playing the villain in the next upcoming Batman film has died today.... "
    Don't forget Iron Man. That movie kicked ass.

    Tony Stark has nothing on Bruce Wayne. Both rich boys, but Tony is the shallow playboy drinker for real, while Bruce only uses that as a facade to hide his real identity alongside being tormented by the deaths of his parents that drive his vigilante conquest. I'll take Bruce over Tony any day of the week.

    Had to be vented.
    Moving on.

    First of all, The Dark Knight isn't even an action film. Calling it that is an insult. Iron Man can shoot off rockets all day, but no comic book movie franchise can match the depth and drama that the Nolan Batman films embody. And secondly, saying that TDK wouldn't be as popular if Heath wouldn't have died is absolute tripe. TDK isn't this popular because of Heath dying, that's complete hogwash. It is renowned because Heath gave a truly chilling, haunting, frightening, and down-right nightmarish performance. TDK is better than all the rest because it took itself seriously and finally gave us a comic book film that, like Batman Begins, surmounted the tropes of the comics lore and showed us a superhero film can be just as serious and deep as the award winning drama. TDK gives us an ordinary man fighting to save his loved ones and the very city of Gotham from a crazy psychopath who stops at nothing to watch the city burn. It is because of Heath taking the role so seriously that we get such a terror-inducing and memorable portrayal of Joker. TDK isn't held with such high regard out of sympathy. That's ludicrous. Heath's masterpiece IS this film, all culminating in a short life, but a life that showed us how much talent he had. TDK may be labeled by some as a simple action film, but that is so wrong. We have drama, emotion, depth, complexity, horror, and the feeling that it is all happening in front of us, like we are in Gotham feeling the pain of the city. TDK showed all the comic books films preceding and following it that they need to step their game up. Nolan, Bale and company will keep the Oscar seats warm, because no comic book film will ever reach their level. Heath put his heart and soul into that performance, and calling his acclaim sympathetic and only due to the fact that he died is complete treason. He deserves every accolade, every single plaque and medal. He deserved that Oscar dead or alive, and made a legacy for himself that will outlive us all through this brilliant performance. His time as the Joker may have been short, but we have that film to watch over and over, to show us what it looks like when an actor truly gives all of himself to a role. He has been cemented forever in the minds of Batman fans and filmgoers alike, making us smile at his craft, shriek at his horrific portrayal, and clap in the honor of him as the credits roll all in the space of a few hours. I have never sat in the theatre and cheered for the villain, but with TDK I couldn't help but smile at how happy Heath's devotion to his work in the acting profession made me. His legacy will truly outlive him, and deservedly so. And THAT isn't overrated.

  • Posts: 6,601
    Shirley Bassey. I'll take AWTD over Shirley Bassey any day. Any week. Any month. Any year.

    Ok this is too much for me !! :-/

    So this is how it feels - like it?

  • Posts: 6,601
    Virage wrote:
    Shirley Bassey. I'll take AWTD over Shirley Bassey any day. Any week. Any month. Any year.

    Ok this is too much for me !! :-/
    What about those opinion thingies that we're all entitled to hmmm??

    Of course he's entitled to that opinion, but IMO it's a very extreme opinion !!

    And if @DaltonCraig007 calls it a extreme opinion. It's an extremely controversial opinion

    ..and HE should know of all people as he is the Mastermind of controversy...

  • Posts: 6,601
    Still I fail to see how being more similar to a book would make a better movie.

    When people are referring to Flemming then yes - its all about the books.
  • Posts: 1,082
    Germanlady wrote:
    Still I fail to see how being more similar to a book would make a better movie.

    When people are referring to Flemming then yes - its all about the books.

    Perhaps I´m stupid, but I don´t understand what you mean. Would you care to elaborate on that, please?

  • Posts: 6,601
    Germanlady wrote:
    Still I fail to see how being more similar to a book would make a better movie.

    When people are referring to Flemming then yes - its all about the books.

    Perhaps I´m stupid, but I don´t understand what you mean. Would you care to elaborate on that, please?

    Its from a few pages back and won't be able to tell you exactly. Was about arguments going on about Flemmings Bond where we have to refer to the books and it doesn't matter THEN, whether or not the films necessarely need to go by the books.

    I understand, you don't care about the books - neither do I - but if you answer to an opinion about Flemming and books, it DOES matter.

  • Posts: 1,082
    Ok, then I see.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited March 2012 Posts: 12,480
    My vague impression was that shadowonthesun (who is no longer allowed to play with us here) was the Mastermind of Controversy. Or maybe it was just Mastermind of Obsessive Strident Disagreement crossing over into Hostility and Rudeness.
    Not to say that DaltonCraig007 doesn't have extreme opinions that he loves to shout about to us all.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 147
    SF is what I hope, when Craig´s Bond really becomes Bond, and the one-liners, Q, Moneypenny and the gadgets return. Craig must have a gadget-laden car, and using the Goldfinger-model wouldn´t be bad.

    Totally agree with you but feel that CR and QoS was made that way for exactly that reason with Bond being a blunt instrument and still learning his trade as 007 hence the gun barrel right after his two kills to get his 007 status at CR before that he wasn't 007 and the Barrel at the end of QoS to close the chapter on this Bond and for that reason why I like these 2 entries, it served its purpose. I honestly hope that Skyfall begins with gun barrel and bring back the Bond we All love with Monypenny, Q and some gadgets but not to much.
  • Posts: 154
    WVPoef wrote:
    SF is what I hope, when Craig´s Bond really becomes Bond, and the one-liners, Q, Moneypenny and the gadgets return. Craig must have a gadget-laden car, and using the Goldfinger-model wouldn´t be bad.

    Totally agree with you but feel that CR and QoS was made that way for exactly that reason with Bond being a blunt instrument and still learning his trade as 007 hence the gun barrel right after his two kills to get his 007 status at CR before that he wasn't 007 and the Barrel at the end of QoS to close the chapter on this Bond and for that reason why I like these 2 entries, it served its purpose. I honestly hope that Skyfall begins with gun barrel and bring back the Bond we All love with Monypenny, Q and some gadgets but not to much.

    I share the same opinon
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    The books I see as a completely different thing. I respect them as original but don´t understand why Bond is supposed to follow those old outings.

    So, Bond's not supposed to follow the example set by what started it in the first place, but it is supposed to follow the example of what tossed out everything the books had.
  • Posts: 1,082
    Well, it is supposed to follow what Bond is in the movies. Books and movies are different to me.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Then why can't we follow the example of what the Bond movies started out with: Dr. No?
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 1,082
    They did in part. The villian and his island is spot on Bond. The difference is that the budgets later grew and gadgets were introduced. But what I´m really talking about is the standard that GF set. It´s not my favorite but that´s how I think a Bond movie is to be made (but it can be largely modified of course).
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 1,052
    The books and the films are different beasts but the general phiolosphy of Bond as always been drawn from Fleming, a lot of the films that are not following a novel directly still have scenes/ elements that are from the books, I believe in FYEO when Bond and Melina are dragged from the boat is from the LALD novel and like wise the bit with the shark in LTK?

    Is LTK the last film to have scenes inspired by actual moments from Flemings books?
Sign In or Register to comment.