Controversial opinions about Bond films

1562563565567568707

Comments

  • Posts: 15,125
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.

    I might have replaced YOLT with a faithful adaptation of MR to give Connery something low key to follow TB. Then OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT in '71 to wrap up his era. His slightly unfit look at the time could have complimented Bond's burned out, post Tracy aftermath in the novel.

    It would have made perfect sense. Heck, at they addressed Tracy's death explicitly in DAF and made it central to the plot Connery's unfit look would have made sense then too.

    Not sure how controversial this is, but they should have cast a better for Max Denbigh. I find Andrew Scott overrated and coming off more as an annoyance than a threat in any of the roles he plays (especially his Jokerarty.)
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.

    I might have replaced YOLT with a faithful adaptation of MR to give Connery something low key to follow TB. Then OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT in '71 to wrap up his era. His slightly unfit look at the time could have complimented Bond's burned out, post Tracy aftermath in the novel.

    It would have made perfect sense. Heck, at they addressed Tracy's death explicitly in DAF and made it central to the plot Connery's unfit look would have made sense then too.

    Not sure how controversial this is, but they should have cast a better for Max Denbigh. I find Andrew Scott overrated and coming off more as an annoyance than a threat in any of the roles he plays (especially his Jokerarty.)
    Gary Oldman was apparently considered for a role in SP. He would've been fantastic as Denbigh.
  • Posts: 1,917
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    A conversational opinion: after finishing Moonraker the book, I feel that Bond and M’s relationship should be more like this book, and less like the Judi Dench version in the later films. Let Bond do his work, trust him sightly, and don’t waste screen time yelling at him, or even worse taking away his 00 number, and making him go rogue.

    I agree. I have never liked the Dench version (as written, not the actress herself whose reputation speaks for itself). I think some of the best examples of the Bond-M relationship are Bernard Lee and Moore in TSWLM and MR where shows pride in Bond and defends him against his own superior. TB also features good examples of this.

    We'll see where this goes in the future. With NTTD being Craig's last, it is hard to say where Fiennes will go with his M.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.
  • Agent_One wrote: »
    Can you imagine an interested Connery with Savalas and Rigg? It would've been electric.
    To be honest, I would be absolutely not interested by a timeline with Connery starring in OHMSS, forgetting Lazenby. Like everyone else, I like Connery's Bond, but not to the point of sacrificing that of his successor.

    Regarding a faithful adaptation of YOLT, it has always been delicate in my eyes since the novel is not cinematographic at all in its structure. There are of course elements that should or could have been adapted (the Garden of Death, Bond's revenge), but not the story itself. The closest thing could be the Reunion with Death scrapped treatment from the 90s, which nonetheless remains a loose adaptation.

    Nevertheless, I would agree with @ToTheRight as a faithful adaptation of Moonraker would have been a far better option to follow Thunderball and would have left YOLT intact.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited May 2020 Posts: 280
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.
    I seem to be alone on this site re: Rory Kinnear's Tanner. Kitchen's was better, but I still like him. The only moment of his that annoyed me was when he ratted Bond out to M at the Nine Eyes vote in SP. Bill Tanner is supposed to be James' friend.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 1,917
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.

    I think you have to throw Michael Kitchen in there as well. I've never liked his version of Tanner while others said they didn't mind. The guy brought nothing to a character said to be Bond's closest friend in the service. As you suggested, just change the name and not leave a blank impression of one of Fleming's more interesting characters who was underwhelmed by the films.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited May 2020 Posts: 7,553
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.

    I think you have to throw Michael Kitchen in there as well. I've never liked his version of Tanner while others said they didn't mind. The guy brought nothing to a character said to be Bond's closest friend in the service. As you suggested, just change the name.

    I liked Kitchen a lot actually, and maybe it's just because of his banter with Bond re: M at their first meeting in GoldenEye; it sort of established a friendship with Bond much more effectively than anything Kinnear's Tanner has done in the Craig era. Kitchen seemed to portray the proper charisma for a friend of Bond.

    To your point, though, he was certainly a lot less involved than Kinnear's Tanner.

    And besides, who else is there? Salmon? They ironically created a new "Tanner" character at a time when they didn't need to.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.

    I think you have to throw Michael Kitchen in there as well. I've never liked his version of Tanner while others said they didn't mind. The guy brought nothing to a character said to be Bond's closest friend in the service. As you suggested, just change the name and not leave a blank impression of one of Fleming's more interesting characters who was underwhelmed by the films.
    At least Kitchen and Kinnear have some personality. Tanner in TMWTGG and FYEO, those are nothing portrayals.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    Agent_One wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.

    I think you have to throw Michael Kitchen in there as well. I've never liked his version of Tanner while others said they didn't mind. The guy brought nothing to a character said to be Bond's closest friend in the service. As you suggested, just change the name and not leave a blank impression of one of Fleming's more interesting characters who was underwhelmed by the films.
    At least Kitchen and Kinnear have some personality. Tanner in TMWTGG and FYEO, those are nothing portrayals.

    Forgot they even existed.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Agent_One wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.

    I think you have to throw Michael Kitchen in there as well. I've never liked his version of Tanner while others said they didn't mind. The guy brought nothing to a character said to be Bond's closest friend in the service. As you suggested, just change the name and not leave a blank impression of one of Fleming's more interesting characters who was underwhelmed by the films.
    At least Kitchen and Kinnear have some personality. Tanner in TMWTGG and FYEO, those are nothing portrayals.

    Forgot they even existed.
    That's my point!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited May 2020 Posts: 4,638
    A lot of these praises and criticisms come down to the writing, in all honesty. Lazenby had Fleming's great material and a hard to mess up script of Maibaum. Maybe DAF or a more faithful YOLT after OHMSS would have helped him. As for Bill Tanner and Max Denbigh, it's all about the writing. Focus more on these side characters, EON, without Purvis and Wade!
  • Posts: 15,125
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    On these boards that is not very controversial.
    I guess, but Lazenby doesn't seem to be particularly appreciated by everyone either. But, since I'm not a great lover of the Moore era, I would have much preferred to see his term starting in 1977 with TSWL and ending with Octopussy, in order to leave the field clear to Lazenby before.
    There is no way Moore would've been picked to be Bond at age 48-49.

    Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.

    This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.

    I might have replaced YOLT with a faithful adaptation of MR to give Connery something low key to follow TB. Then OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT in '71 to wrap up his era. His slightly unfit look at the time could have complimented Bond's burned out, post Tracy aftermath in the novel.

    It would have made perfect sense. Heck, at they addressed Tracy's death explicitly in DAF and made it central to the plot Connery's unfit look would have made sense then too.

    Not sure how controversial this is, but they should have cast a better for Max Denbigh. I find Andrew Scott overrated and coming off more as an annoyance than a threat in any of the roles he plays (especially his Jokerarty.)
    Gary Oldman was apparently considered for a role in SP. He would've been fantastic as Denbigh.

    A tad too famous for my taste, but far better choice. And with the right maturity too.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Can you imagine an interested Connery with Savalas and Rigg? It would've been electric.
    To be honest, I would be absolutely not interested by a timeline with Connery starring in OHMSS, forgetting Lazenby. Like everyone else, I like Connery's Bond, but not to the point of sacrificing that of his successor.

    Regarding a faithful adaptation of YOLT, it has always been delicate in my eyes since the novel is not cinematographic at all in its structure. There are of course elements that should or could have been adapted (the Garden of Death, Bond's revenge), but not the story itself. The closest thing could be the Reunion with Death scrapped treatment from the 90s, which nonetheless remains a loose adaptation.

    Nevertheless, I would agree with @ToTheRight as a faithful adaptation of Moonraker would have been a far better option to follow Thunderball and would have left YOLT intact.

    YOLT did a bit of the Garden of Death (the piranha pool).

    What's this RwD treatment?

    Eon only got the rights to MR in 1967 or so. Otherwise, I think we might have seen it sooner.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Yeah, what are the details on this Reunion With Death story?
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 631
    echo wrote: »
    No. The Disney lobbyists will never let their copyright expire, and Eon can just ride their coattails.

    The law is the law. Disney can lobby until they are blue in the face, if they like, but one day copyright will expire. That is one of the reasons why copyright exists in the first place.

    This is why I do not fear for the long term future of JB.

    1. 2020-2034: Eon have a monopoly on 007. That’s good, they can bring out films.

    2. 2034 onwards, Eon: they still have a monopoly on the gun barrel, the theme, lots of characters, probably Blofeld and Spectre too. So their films will still have that ‘Bond feel.’ So that’s good too.

    3. 2034 onwards, non-Eon: well, non-Eon companies can bring out their own films too, utilising Fleming. I think we will see some films set in the 1950s for instance. They will be serious, a bit like the Tinker Tailor movie from a few years ago. But this is good too because (1) they’re still Bond films and (2) it’s competition for Eon so they might up their game.

    Long term future looks fine to me. Is that a controversial opinion? I hope not.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Agree about Max Denbigh. Gary Oldman would have been awesome; more of a peer to Fiennes' M.

    On that topic, Tanner in the Craig era has always been horrifically miscast with Rory Kinnear (don't know how controversial this is around here). He's a fantastic actor by all accounts but totally wrong for the role. If they wanted to make a loyal terrier for M, they should have just invented a new character.
    I seem to be alone on this site re: Rory Kinnear's Tanner. Kitchen's was better, but I still like him. The only moment of his that annoyed me was when he ratted Bond out to M at the Nine Eyes vote in SP. Bill Tanner is supposed to be James' friend.

    To be honest, what else could Tanner do? Just because Tanner is supposed to be friends with Bond doesn’t really mean he’ll turn a blind eye to his unsanctioned activities. He’s the chief of staff doing his job.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    For the record, I'm all for a gay or bi actor to play Bond. Not Luke Evans specifically (he's too old now and not too sure about his face) , but someone with his skills and his talent. I do think however that they won't cast an openly gay actor for now, fearing a potential controversy.

    My hunch is the media would probably make the casting of an openly gay actor as Bond the primary focus (rather than the film itself) in terms of publicity.

    Doesn't matter to me either way, as my controversial opinion still stands:
    I believe NTTD will probably be the last Bond film we get for a very long time, if ever.

    It's not a controversial opinion. It's a potentially controversial assessment. And unfortunately I think you might be right. Even if it is a success which I think it will (then again the pandemic might change seriously the movie industry).

    I certainly want this hunch proven wrong, and Bond 26 sooner than later.
    I remember feeling optimistic that B25 could be out in 2017 to wrap up Craig's reign. We'd have the first outing of a new Bond in 2019 with a second outing aimed for 2022. That might have been great.

    Hypothetical situation: say had George Lucas offered Cubby to produce RETURN OF THE JEDI, no doubt he would have turned it down simply on the grounds it was being released during a Bond year.
    Bond always came first for Cubby. I think Barbara and Michael probably would have no problem postponing Bond another couple years to focus on something else.

    It’s a possibility. Toho does this with Godzilla where they “retire” the franchise for a number of years and bring it back when there’s a great hunger for it again. Instead of hopping to another actor, they let Bond sit out for awhile and when the time is right they bring it back with a new actor and the hype machine already prepped with Bond’s long awaited return.

    Though it was not EON’s intention to have a six year gap before GE, it no doubt partly added to audiences feeling hungry for another Bond film.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 910
    echo wrote: »
    What's this RwD treatment?
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Yeah, what are the details on this Reunion With Death story?

    Back in 1994, when Michael France was writing Goldeneye, Eon commissioned two separate treatments to John Cork et Richard Smith for future Bond films starring Dalton. Reunion with Death would thus, hypothetically, have been Dalton's fourth movie and was the one written by Smith. In this story, Bond would have traveled to Japan after the murder of a British businessman. The villain would have lived in a medieval Japanese castle and worn samurai armor to face Bond in the third act.

  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,610
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    A conversational opinion: after finishing Moonraker the book, I feel that Bond and M’s relationship should be more like this book, and less like the Judi Dench version in the later films. Let Bond do his work, trust him sightly, and don’t waste screen time yelling at him, or even worse taking away his 00 number, and making him go rogue.
    As I'm doing a re-read of the moonraker novel right now, I agree. I really like the way Bond and M's relationship is described here. And I also feel that the concept of taking away 00 numbers or agents going rogue is wearing off in movies.

    By the way, this here's my favourite M actress:

  • Posts: 16,169
    echo wrote: »
    What's this RwD treatment?
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Yeah, what are the details on this Reunion With Death story?

    Back in 1994, when Michael France was writing Goldeneye, Eon commissioned two separate treatments to John Cork et Richard Smith for future Bond films starring Dalton. Reunion with Death would thus, hypothetically, have been Dalton's fourth movie and was the one written by Smith. In this story, Bond would have traveled to Japan after the murder of a British businessman. The villain would have lived in a medieval Japanese castle and worn samurai armor to face Bond in the third act.


    I probably would have liked RwD more than TND. Damn I wish Tim had stuck around.
  • Posts: 230
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Of course, most are fine. The thing I find the most hilarious is when you ask the biggest and most obsessed Star Wars fans to list their favorite movies. You quickly find out they only actually like 2/9 films. It would be like people hanging-out here who like 4 Bond films and think the rest are absolute trash.

    Yes that’s very true. Alien fans are similar, many of them seem to like only the first two films which means that for them everything released after 1986 (nearly 40 years ago!) is a bust.

    Whereas I get the impression that many Bond film fans (at least the ones who post here?) do actually like the majority of the films, or at least can see the good points even in the ones they’re not so keen on, so can still gain enjoyment from them.

    Right. Except for most of DAD and the second-half of TND, I would rather watch my least favorite 8-9 Bond films than just about anything available. With full self-awareness that most of those 8-9 are not, objectively, good films.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Of course, most are fine. The thing I find the most hilarious is when you ask the biggest and most obsessed Star Wars fans to list their favorite movies. You quickly find out they only actually like 2/9 films. It would be like people hanging-out here who like 4 Bond films and think the rest are absolute trash.

    Yes that’s very true. Alien fans are similar, many of them seem to like only the first two films which means that for them everything released after 1986 (nearly 40 years ago!) is a bust.

    Whereas I get the impression that many Bond film fans (at least the ones who post here?) do actually like the majority of the films, or at least can see the good points even in the ones they’re not so keen on, so can still gain enjoyment from them.

    Right. Except for most of DAD and the second-half of TND, I would rather watch my least favorite 8-9 Bond films than just about anything available. With full self-awareness that most of those 8-9 are not, objectively, good films.

    Me too. I still rate my #21, FYEO, 7 out of 10. Ergo, still a decent movie.
  • Posts: 16,169
    Controversial opinion:

    I LIKE TIMOTHY DALTON'S HAIR IN LTK!


    tim-dalton-ec565092-daf4-47bb-aaf1-7e2b9546cf6-resize-750.jpeg


  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    So do I!
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Me as well. Until it looks like Dracula in the casino
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,553
    That is a controversial opinion.
  • Posts: 7,507
    His hair is excellent except for those scenes in the casino.
  • Posts: 16,169
    I figure in the casino, Bond is applying for a job with Sanchez and opts for a harder look hence the slicked hair.
  • Posts: 7,436
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I figure in the casino, Bond is applying for a job with Sanchez and opts for a harder look hence the slicked hair.

    Agree! Daltons hair never bothered me in that scene, at least its his own!!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    I don't mind his hair either. The complaints about his outfits in that film are a bit exaggerated as well imo.
Sign In or Register to comment.