›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…408409411413414…707

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,115
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    I think you misread this. She isn't supposed to be a traitor from the beginning but someone from her past is coming and starting to blackmail her.

    We'll she's been shagging someone from the KGB mate. Pretty sure if she mentions that in the interview for head of MI6 she's dead in the water. Not a traitor technically I guess but serious security risk and still a shit idea.

    I always understood the Bond killing M was more like a 24 stunt (in the third season Jack Bauer kills his superior under threat from the villain of making a bomb explose or something). But yes terrible idea. Which dates back from the first draft of Goldeneye if I'm not mistaken.

    My controversial... observation/prediction based on various trends: personal angles are here to stay. They are constant since LTK and are present in every franchise nowadays. So when Craig is gone they will remain there.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Apart from anything else where were they going to insert this 'flashback'?
    As the PTS? Imagine the thrill of that 'Bond is back I'm pumped for a cracking stunt packed PTS. Oh it's turned into Mills & Boon.' Or do we just stop the film halfway through and have her recount the tale a la Ricky Tarr in TTSS?

    So we go from a Bond film to an M film all about her character and choices (which to be fair SF pretty much is anyway) and either they do it sympathetically so we feel for her and her Russian chap and Bond comes across like a bastard for killing her or they make her a traitor which is shit as well.

    I thought the 'M is a traitor' angle in SP was dumb but this might have been worse. At least you could sell that as 'proper Judi M is dead and this guy Mallory turned out to be working for SPECTRE all along' rather than having Bond gunning down dear old Judi for being a traitor (which she would've had to have been to justify him killing her).
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited December 2017 Posts: 7,021
    If they're gonna sell, they probably wouldn't do badly by selling to Ralph Fiennes. If only he could afford it...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Great shout.

    He's literally the only person on EON's books I trust at present.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GBF wrote: »
    a shit idea indeed. My God, what were they thinking? And still the last three Bond films suffer so much from poor writing. It is so annoying since it is actually not so extremely difficult to write a satisfying story. Why not just make SPECTRE to be the larger than life organisation it used to be. Give them a larger than life plan and go for it. Give us a great climax, some interesting side characters, some unexpected but serious twists, interesting locations, an exiting score and skip all the emotional bullshit we have now seen in every Bond film.

    I know, right? Absolute piece of piss. Have you sent EON your screenplay?
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Bond gunning down dear old Judi for being a traitor

    Remember that thread about Bond dealbreakers - the unforgivable thing that would make you quit watching/being a fan? I believe I've just found mine.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If anyone should do that, it should be Brosnan. Then he should kiss her and sniff her hair.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me why they think it's such a terrible idea? Doesn't sound bad to me at all.

    'a flashback shows a young M during the Cold War having an affair with a KGB agent. This leads to a modern day plotline in which the bad guys blackmail M. Stunningly, the story ended with Bond killing M to protect the service.'

    So Craig's M has been a traitor all along from the start of CR? And they are just rehashing Vesper's story but with M instead?

    If people really can't see why P&W's desperation to foist poor man's Le Carre plotlines upon us and have everything revolving about the increasingly irritating and dysfunctional MI6 family is a bad idea I really do despair.

    Stop getting Bond wrong!!! Just give us an honest to goodness film where the fate of the world depends on one man.

    I don't give two shits about M's backstory, Q's cats, MP's fridge and Tanner's err well just Tanner in general.

    Alas my Mariana Trench low expectations for B25 have sunk even further having read this article as not only did they try for it for SF they tried to resurrect it for SP. It's clear it's something they are keen on and Babs & MGW are too seeing as it was greenlit and only Fiennes blocking it saved us. Once he leaves (after the Craig era?) we are getting this storyline.

    I don't think she was a traitor in that draft. She had a relationship with someone she shouldn't have years earlier who ends up dead, and then a villain who knows about that comes for revenge by blackmailing her. Bond killing her could have been to save face or save lives (if it was a "hand M over or I'll blow up xyx" situation). Don't think it was just a case of her being a Russian spy and Bond having to kill her.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,290
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Apart from anything else where were they going to insert this 'flashback'?
    As the PTS? Imagine the thrill of that 'Bond is back I'm pumped for a cracking stunt packed PTS. Oh it's turned into Mills & Boon.' Or do we just stop the film halfway through and have her recount the tale a la Ricky Tarr in TTSS?

    So we go from a Bond film to an M film all about her character and choices (which to be fair SF pretty much is anyway) and either they do it sympathetically so we feel for her and her Russian chap and Bond comes across like a bastard for killing her or they make her a traitor which is shit as well.

    I thought the 'M is a traitor' angle in SP was dumb but this might have been worse. At least you could sell that as 'proper Judi M is dead and this guy Mallory turned out to be working for SPECTRE all along' rather than having Bond gunning down dear old Judi for being a traitor (which she would've had to have been to justify him killing her).

    Bond killing M would have been terrible and destroyed any sympathy for his character--a bridge too far. It does indeed sound like a 24 stunt.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,785
    OO7 kills M. Well that's bad, but it's the kind of brainstorming and testing of waters that goes on with the writers they bring in. It's back to the producers to keep the train in the tracks. They did.

    I think a closer call was toying with Bond and Moneypenny having a romantic relationship. That would also be a big mistake. They properly showed restraint.

    Dial back to 1994-1995, how would a forum like this react to proposals for a female M. Or films without Moneypenny and Q, Bond on his first mission. Not well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Dial back to 1994-1995, how would a forum like this react to proposals for a female M. Or films without Moneypenny and Q, Bond on his first mission. Not well.
    It's interesting that you mention that, because I was musing just earlier today that they may have to go back to a female M after a reboot, given the times. Having just seen the latest SW, I can see a desire to have more female oversight of our swashbuckling testosterone filled male heroes. It's a sign of the times we're in. A fair amount of PC kickback which can impact a chap like Bond. Either that or his boss will be a visible minority.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,785
    Not necessarily a bad thing. To confront Bond with PC is different with him being PC himself--it just plays up the difference. As long as he's still a womanizing, martini-imbibing cold-blooded killer or something along those lines.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    Not necessarily a bad thing. To confront Bond with PC is different with him being PC himself--it just plays up the difference. As long as he's still a womanizing, martini-imbibing cold-blooded killer or something along those lines.
    Indeed and I fully agree. I disliked Dench M in GE because of her dressing down of Bond. Then she became more of a 'mother' which was more tolerable. However, ultimately Bond must remain what you describe. If they pull those attributes away to accommodate culture, I will be upset. Bond was always a little 'counter-culture' and he needs to remain that way, with an actor who can sell it instinctively without crossing a line.

    EDIT: I think the trick to staying on track and maintaining the delicate balance is to have someone who can project a roguish charm/cheek. Someone who can get away with bad behaviour while still being essentially likable. It will be a critical casting choice and they should select wisely. The writing will be key as well. More TB Domino intro and far less DAD Jinx intro. Either that or they will abandon and downplay these character attributes, and then hopefully another franchise picks it up.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    The Brosnan era is underrated.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    The Brosnan era is underrated.

    Seconded.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Well 2 of them are good 2 are garbage, just like the Craig era
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We can agree that four of the eight are good, and four are garbage.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    3 and a half of them are great. And the other half? Fate...
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    For me...

    Brosnan Era:
    GoldenEye - Awesome; the first and easily the best of Brosnan’s Bond tenure. One of the best Bond films ever.
    Tomorrow Never Dies - Decent sophomore film for Brosnan. He himself turns in a great performance, but the elements around him are hit-and-miss.
    The World Is Not Enough - Has some really good elements, but also very weak ones that badly hurt the film. It’s okay overall, but a waste of potential and could have been way better had some things been changed. Also Brosnan’s least good Bond performance.
    Die Another Day - Pretty fun up through the sword fight for the most part, but it’s a complete train wreck and becomes perhaps the worst Bond film by the end. Brosnan himself does well, but few orher things work here.

    Craig Era:
    Casino Royale - Best Bond film ever. Works in every way; any flaws are totally minimal.
    Quantum of Solace - Good follow-up to CR, but questionable camera work can really hinder some of it. Some of the stuff after the Opera House sequence also can be meh.
    Skyfall - Top-tier Bond material. A few issues, but overall great stuff.
    Spectre - Average. Decent first two thirds, bad final act. Lacked tension and felt too easy compared to the other Craig adventures.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    3 of the 8 are superb. 1 is average. 4 don't do much for me.
  • jobojobo
    Posts: 7,507
    2 ecxellent ones, 3 average, 1 forgettable and 2 cringe enducing
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,415
    DAD is the one thats a complete mess imho!
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,466
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    DAD is the one thats a complete mess imho!

    Pretty much agreed. I like some stuff for the first third, but after that it becomes a complete sad mess.
  • W_Glass_90W_Glass_90 Virginia
    edited December 2017 Posts: 24
    Even though Sean Connery is my personal favorite Bond actor. I've considered the film You Only Live Twice to be quite overrated which hasn't set well with other fans. Aside from Donald Pleasence (who I personally feel was inferior to Anthony Dawson/Eric Pohlmann & Telly Savalas) and Ken Adams' set designs. I don't think that film would get as much praise. Plus, it has one of my least favorite moments in any Bond film. Bond "becomes Japanese" which is just cringe inducing to watch.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,154
    W_Glass_90 wrote: »
    Even though Sean Connery is my personal favorite Bond actor. I've considered the film You Only Live Twice to be quite overrated which hasn't set well with other fans. Aside from Donald Pleasence (who I personally feel was inferior to Anthony Dawson/Eric Pohlmann & Telly Savalas) and Ken Adams' set designs. I don't think that film would get as much praise. Plus, it has one of my least favorite moments in any Bond film. Bond "become Japanese" which is just cringe inducing to watch.

    Sean does look pretty ridiculous in the make up and wig. I laugh every time he's revealed in that shot of him entering the bedroom.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    GE - Marry
    TND - Shag
    TWINE - Marry
    DAD - Kill

    CR - Marry
    QoS - Shag
    SF - Kill
    SP - Marry

    Marry 4, shag 2, kill 2
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    I think YOLT's a fun flick. I like Gilbert's adventures with Bond. But I agree it's undoubtedly the weakest of the 60's ones, and at best a middling one in the overall franchise. That being said, DAF makes it look like a top ten film by comparison.
  • W_Glass_90W_Glass_90 Virginia
    Posts: 24
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    W_Glass_90 wrote: »
    Even though Sean Connery is my personal favorite Bond actor. I've considered the film You Only Live Twice to be quite overrated which hasn't set well with other fans. Aside from Donald Pleasence (who I personally feel was inferior to Anthony Dawson/Eric Pohlmann & Telly Savalas) and Ken Adams' set designs. I don't think that film would get as much praise. Plus, it has one of my least favorite moments in any Bond film. Bond "become Japanese" which is just cringe inducing to watch.

    Sean does look pretty ridiculous in the make up and wig. I laugh every time he's revealed in that shot of him entering the bedroom.

    Tell me about it. It's even worse during the scenes where he's trying to sound Japanese with his Scottish accent.
  • W_Glass_90W_Glass_90 Virginia
    Posts: 24
    ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »
    I think YOLT's a fun flick. I like Gilbert's adventures with Bond. But I agree it's undoubtedly the weakest of the 60's ones, and at best a middling one in the overall franchise. That being said, DAF makes it look like a top ten film by comparison.

    I thoroughly agree with this assessment. Diamonds Are Forever is a chore for me to watch. The more I watch it, the more I wish either Lazenby or Moore were in it.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Or that Connery actually cared, lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.