Controversial opinions about Bond films

1693694696698699707

Comments

  • Stamper wrote: »
    But you don't dress Bond as a clown! Imagine Craig dressed as a clown. The backlash would end the series right there.

    We're just going to forget Craig dressed up in Halloween costume like an awkward teenage trick of treater in Spectre? There's no difference between that scene and Moore as a clown in Octopussy. They are both disguises to allow then to hide in plain sight.
  • M16_Cart wrote: »
    One of the most brilliant scenes in the whole franchise


    This is one of my favourite moments in Moore's tenure. I get really pissed off, actually, about the way this scene gets talked about in bad faith in the public discourse ("Bond wears a clown suit, and that's bad", without the context of WHY he wears the clown suit or how damned tense that entire sequence is). If it doesn't work for someone, fair enough, but don't act like Bond just dresses like a clown for the hell of it. It's not like the Tarzan yell, which is JUST there for the sake of the gag.

    Superbly put. The discourse around this scene has been deliberately skewed so it appears Moore is a clown for the sake of it. A symptom of the general snobbery to the Moore films.
    w2bond wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    One of the most brilliant scenes in the whole franchise


    This is one of my favourite moments in Moore's tenure. I get really pissed off, actually, about the way this scene gets talked about in bad faith in the public discourse ("Bond wears a clown suit, and that's bad", without the context of WHY he wears the clown suit or how damned tense that entire sequence is). If it doesn't work for someone, fair enough, but don't act like Bond just dresses like a clown for the hell of it. It's not like the Tarzan yell, which is JUST there for the sake of the gag.

    +1. One of the tense-est and best third acts of the series. Moore is deadly serious here, and aside from a few moments that are too jarring for most people but not me, he plays the rest of the movie with a straight face. I seriously have fun with this movie

    I've said this before. The whole Germany sequence is wonderfully tense. Well acted with high amounts of tension. There's a reason why Octopussy is my 4th best Bond behind TSWLM, OHMSS and FRWL. Sometimes it rises higher. I think it is excellent and this scene is the end of a tense chunk that builds up.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Stamper wrote: »
    But you don't dress Bond as a clown! Imagine Craig dressed as a clown. The backlash would end the series right there.

    We're just going to forget Craig dressed up in Halloween costume like an awkward teenage trick of treater in Spectre? There's no difference between that scene and Moore as a clown in Octopussy. They are both disguises to allow then to hide in plain sight.

    Ehhhh… there’s a world of difference in terms of the context. I have no issue with Moore Bond disguising as a clown. That’s fine. However, Moore Bond took his time to apply make up and costume when there was a nuke set to detonate. We even see that the moment he finally gets to it there’s literally only a few seconds. So the issue I have is that Moore taking the time to do his makeup almost ruins the urgency of the scene. That said, I think Moore does his best to sell the urgency with his acting in spite of the set up.
  • Posts: 15,097
    I think I said it before, but here's one: I find formal ranking of Bond movies pretty pointless.
    Another note: as much as I like Moore, he was stretching credibility playing an operative of his age from FYEO onwards (and I love both FYEO and OP). Also, had he played Ffolkes or a similar character (the ageing military veteran) in more than one movie, he could have had a far more active post Bond career.
  • DraxCucumberSandwichDraxCucumberSandwich United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 208
    More love for the Germany sequence from Octopussy here.

    This was a sequence that could have gone badly wrong on screen, but it plays beautifully and John Glen must get a lot of credit for steering the ship so well through potentially rocky waters (it was only his 2nd go at being Director)

    Moore in a clown outfit trying, trying,trying to get to the bomb, desperate and powerless to convince people of the threat: it’s brilliant and like something from a Hitchcock movie. Almost the opposite of what we expect from Bond (capable, in control, powerful). A Hitchcock protagonist is typically powerless and overwhelmed by forces outside their control. That’s what we get here
  • Daniel Craig's pout is super annoying and looks comically desperate to look serious, tough and cool. There's no need for it. I also think that he let the media get to his head about being ugly so he's overcompensated with the tight suits and daft pouting he employs.

    Craig's best Bond look:

  • edited November 2021 Posts: 214
    DAF is the only Bond film I haven't watched a single moment of since my early teens. I would avoid it even if it was on a TBS Bond Marathon (which was awesome back in those days on cable). I absolutely hate it. They paid Connery record money for that?

    Only my controversial opinion, as it's a thread for such.
  • DraxCucumberSandwichDraxCucumberSandwich United Kingdom
    edited November 2021 Posts: 208
    Skyfall and Vertigo

    Skyfall is my favourite Bond movie. Something about it really clicked for me. It took me a while to work out what it was but watching the Mendes commentary on the Blu-ray made it clear. He mentioned during the Shanghai sequence that when Bond grabs onto the lift, he was directly referencing a shot from the Hitchcock film Vertigo, which is my favourite ever movie.

    Suddenly it all fell into place. Skyfall has Vertigo connections all over the place to an uncanny degree.

    I’ll list them out below (I did put this online once before, a few years ago on a Phil Nobile Jr. article, I think maybe at BirthMoviesDeath):

    - the imagery in the SF title sequence has clear references to the title and dream sequences from Vertigo. The gravestones and the camera going into the eye

    - both movies start with a prologue mid mission chase sequence, with the protagonist (Bond and Scottie) chasing someone down. In both cases the protagonist has to watch or let a colleague die, and both prologues end with Bond / Scottie in a situation from which there really isn’t any plausible escape or survival

    - Bond and Scottie both in fact do survive but we aren’t shown how they do it. This leaves both characters metaphorically suspended between life and death during their movies.
    In Vertigo, it’s a clear visual metaphor (as you’d expect from Hitchcock). The prologue ends with Scottie literally suspended between life and death. In Skyfall, it’s maybe a bit more textual: Bond is ‘enjoying death’ and his hobby is ‘resurrection’

    -Bond and Scottie both leave the service (mi6 and the police force respectively). They are both dealing with physical and psychological trauma

    - They are both drawn back into spy/detective work to try and protect a woman who is being haunted by something/someone from the past.

    -Bond / Scottie both start their investigations through mesmerising wordless sequences where they are tracking someone through a city (Shanghai/San Francisco). In both of these sequences they observe someone sat in front of a painting

    -Both movies turn on plots that have villains hatching what some critics consider to be totally implausible schemes to achieve their objectives, having an almost omnipotent ability to predict how people are going on behave at particular moments in time. Some have said these are weaknesses of the films, even plot holes.

    -in both movies the villains seemingly achieve their objectives (and in Vertigo Gavin Estler gets away with it as far as we know)

    - Both movies have climatic scenes whereby Bond/Scottie have to go back to revisit the scenes of past trauma

    - Bond and Scottie both lose the girl at the end in a church

    I’m sure all of these can’t be coincidence. Were the writers and Mendes deliberately evoking Vertigo with such obvious parallels apparent?
  • Posts: 1,394
    Lea Seydoux would have been much better off being cast as a villainess in one of the Craig Bond films ( See Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol for proof ).

    It just occurred to me actually that Craig is the only Bond not to go up against a female villain or henchwoman in one of his films.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,258
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Lea Seydoux would have been much better off being cast as a villainess in one of the Craig Bond films ( See Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol for proof ).

    It just occurred to me actually that Craig is the only Bond not to go up against a female villain or henchwoman in one of his films.

    Wasn't there Valenka in Casino Royale?
  • Posts: 15,097
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Lea Seydoux would have been much better off being cast as a villainess in one of the Craig Bond films ( See Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol for proof ).

    It just occurred to me actually that Craig is the only Bond not to go up against a female villain or henchwoman in one of his films.

    Wasn't there Valenka in Casino Royale?

    Well he doesn't sleep with her or try to seduce her. Personally, I don't mind. I'm all for femmes fatales, but too often in films I find them by-the-number and rather dull.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Lea Seydoux would have been much better off being cast as a villainess in one of the Craig Bond films ( See Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol for proof ).

    It just occurred to me actually that Craig is the only Bond not to go up against a female villain or henchwoman in one of his films.

    Am I blanking on Timothy's female villain?
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Hello all! I’m not as active on these boards as I used to be, but after the mixed reaction among fans to NTTD (and my own distaste for it), a recent question posed in the James Bond subreddit about Craig’s tenure got me thinking. I’ve reposted my response here.

    “There’s a dichotomy that the Craig era has created among Bond fans. It has succeeded in pleasing popular audiences by playing on gritty realism and subversion of expectations, something that has been en vogue since The Dark Knight and the Bourne movies, but in doing so has created something that is basically antithetical to the 40 years of cinematic Bond that preceded it.

    From 1962-2002, we saw a Bond that was an unflappable winner. Aside from a few exceptions like OHMSS, he always saved the day, got the girl, and seemed to enjoy his job. It was fun escapism with imaginative gadgets and over-the-top villains. You knew how it was going to end; you knew Bond would win, you were just along for the ride. There was something comforting in that.

    The Craig era brought grit, emotion, and realism to the Bond franchise. We saw a Bond that was more human in a world that was more grounded. It followed the current popular trope of having a tortured, troubled main character. Craig’s Bond never got a happy ending, except for Spectre, which was
    undone in NTTD.
    All of this ultimately culminated in the other currently popular trope of
    killing the main character for shock value. The MCU did it with Tony Stark, so why not Bond?

    Now we’re left with two divided groups of fans; people who loved the style of 62-02 that no longer see any semblance of the character they loved in Craig’s Bond, and people who became fans largely because of Craig’s era, who are fans of something completely unlike the 20 Bond movies that came before it.”

    The original question for anyone interested:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/r4vvw5/a_question_for_hardcore_and_casual_bond_fans/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited November 2021 Posts: 735
    Skyfall and Vertigo

    Skyfall is my favourite Bond movie. Something about it really clicked for me. It took me a while to work out what it was but watching the Mendes commentary on the Blu-ray made it clear. He mentioned during the Shanghai sequence that when Bond grabs onto the lift, he was directly referencing a shot from the Hitchcock film Vertigo, which is my favourite ever movie.

    Suddenly it all fell into place. Skyfall has Vertigo connections all over the place to an uncanny degree.

    I’ll list them out below (I did put this online once before, a few years ago on a Phil Nobile Jr. article, I think maybe at BirthMoviesDeath):

    - the imagery in the SF title sequence has clear references to the title and dream sequences from Vertigo. The gravestones and the camera going into the eye

    - both movies start with a prologue mid mission chase sequence, with the protagonist (Bond and Scottie) chasing someone down. In both cases the protagonist has to watch or let a colleague die, and both prologues end with Bond / Scottie in a situation from which there really isn’t any plausible escape or survival

    - Bond and Scottie both in fact do survive but we aren’t shown how they do it. This leaves both characters metaphorically suspended between life and death during their movies.
    In Vertigo, it’s a clear visual metaphor (as you’d expect from Hitchcock). The prologue ends with Scottie literally suspended between life and death. In Skyfall, it’s maybe a bit more textual: Bond is ‘enjoying death’ and his hobby is ‘resurrection’

    -Bond and Scottie both leave the service (mi6 and the police force respectively). They are both dealing with physical and psychological trauma

    - They are both drawn back into spy/detective work to try and protect a woman who is being haunted by something/someone from the past.

    -Bond / Scottie both start their investigations through mesmerising wordless sequences where they are tracking someone through a city (Shanghai/San Francisco). In both of these sequences they observe someone sat in front of a painting

    -Both movies turn on plots that have villains hatching what some critics consider to be totally implausible schemes to achieve their objectives, having an almost omnipotent ability to predict how people are going on behave at particular moments in time. Some have said these are weaknesses of the films, even plot holes.

    -in both movies the villains seemingly achieve their objectives (and in Vertigo Gavin Estler gets away with it as far as we know)

    - Both movies have climatic scenes whereby Bond/Scottie have to go back to revisit the scenes of past trauma

    - Bond and Scottie both lose the girl at the end in a church

    I’m sure all of these can’t be coincidence. Were the writers and Mendes deliberately evoking Vertigo with such obvious parallels apparent?

    Very interesting, thanks ...

    ... and not something I'd considered myself (especially the psychological connections between Scotty & Craig-Bond) despite having seen Vertigo countless times. Mendes did list it among his ten best or favourite films for the canonical Sight & Sound poll in 2012, so you might be on to something.

    https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/sightandsoundpoll2012/voter/1157
  • Posts: 2,161
    As I’ve said elsewhere, I like all of the new characters, but my favorite has to be Valdo.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Valdo would have never fit in QOS.

    And that’s why I like him.
  • Posts: 1,916
    Hello all! I’m not as active on these boards as I used to be, but after the mixed reaction among fans to NTTD (and my own distaste for it), a recent question posed in the James Bond subreddit about Craig’s tenure got me thinking. I’ve reposted my response here.

    “There’s a dichotomy that the Craig era has created among Bond fans. It has succeeded in pleasing popular audiences by playing on gritty realism and subversion of expectations, something that has been en vogue since The Dark Knight and the Bourne movies, but in doing so has created something that is basically antithetical to the 40 years of cinematic Bond that preceded it.

    From 1962-2002, we saw a Bond that was an unflappable winner. Aside from a few exceptions like OHMSS, he always saved the day, got the girl, and seemed to enjoy his job. It was fun escapism with imaginative gadgets and over-the-top villains. You knew how it was going to end; you knew Bond would win, you were just along for the ride. There was something comforting in that.

    The Craig era brought grit, emotion, and realism to the Bond franchise. We saw a Bond that was more human in a world that was more grounded. It followed the current popular trope of having a tortured, troubled main character. Craig’s Bond never got a happy ending, except for Spectre, which was
    undone in NTTD.
    All of this ultimately culminated in the other currently popular trope of
    killing the main character for shock value. The MCU did it with Tony Stark, so why not Bond?

    Now we’re left with two divided groups of fans; people who loved the style of 62-02 that no longer see any semblance of the character they loved in Craig’s Bond, and people who became fans largely because of Craig’s era, who are fans of something completely unlike the 20 Bond movies that came before it.”

    The original question for anyone interested:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/r4vvw5/a_question_for_hardcore_and_casual_bond_fans/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
    All the world seems divided these days over everything, so it figures some Bond fans would be too.

    Personally, I straddle both camps. Love the original era, but went through a lot of points where I felt it needed serious shaking up and too much of a formula. Love the Craig era and the chances it took but saw flaws there too and now I look forward to what's next.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,155
    I wonder if this is controversial. I think Connery acted worse in YOLT than he did in DAF and NSNA.
  • Posts: 1,916
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I wonder if this is controversial. I think Connery acted worse in YOLT than he did in DAF and NSNA.

    I wouldn't disagree. I maintain it isn't so much his acting in YOLT as he's just not given a whole lot to do but operate gadgetry, fight and run. But even in the interactions with Tanaka in his office, train and later home, he doesn't seem particularly his witty self or come across with as much presence as we're used to.

    I'm always mystified by those who claim he's unengaged or just picking up a paycheck in DAF. He's much wittier than in YOLT and having a better time than he was in YOLT. The check of course didn't hurt and the fact they were playing entirely on his terms probably also helped.

    NSNA had more of his input, so there was that, although he was much more involved in the production side.
  • Posts: 2,161
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I wonder if this is controversial. I think Connery acted worse in YOLT than he did in DAF and NSNA.

    Actually, I think that is pretty much accepted. At least I think it's true, and I know others have agreed with me over the years.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,171
    Man it always makes me roll my eyes when I read someone claiming Connery looked bored or that he was sleepwalking.

    I can only guess they come away with that because they think his apparent weight gain* must mean he only did it for the paycheck. Every account has asserted that not only was Connery engaged during production but commended for his professionalism.

    *= and if no one was aware, Connery only signed onto DAF weeks before shooting began. He could only physically prepare with a short amount of time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,309
    I do think he’s not as inventive or sparky in YOLT. ‘Sleepwalking’ is too strong, but I don’t think he’s at full power. He’s much better in DAF.
  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 735
    mtm wrote: »
    I do think he’s not as inventive or sparky in YOLT. ‘Sleepwalking’ is too strong, but I don’t think he’s at full power. He’s much better in DAF.

    Agreed. DAF has some of the wittiest dialogue in the series and which, for his part, Connery delivers with great aplomb. In YOLT, as much as I love the film, he's entirely overshadowed (imho) by the spectacle and everything that's happing around him. I wonder, too, if much of Connery's dialogue was recorded in post as it sounds a little off-kilter at times, at least to my ears.
  • Posts: 54
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I'm always mystified by those who claim he's unengaged or just picking up a paycheck in DAF. He's much wittier than in YOLT and having a better time than he was in YOLT. The check of course didn't hurt and the fact they were playing entirely on his terms probably also helped.
    .

    Agreed, Connery is noticeably more relaxed and seems to be enjoying himself in DAF. I’ve read several reviews over the years that note how bored he looks in it and it’s always baffled me. I’m not a fan of the film, but in terms of his performance, I think it was a nice way for him to bow out of the official series.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,020
    Hello all! I’m not as active on these boards as I used to be, but after the mixed reaction among fans to NTTD (and my own distaste for it), a recent question posed in the James Bond subreddit about Craig’s tenure got me thinking. I’ve reposted my response here.

    “There’s a dichotomy that the Craig era has created among Bond fans. It has succeeded in pleasing popular audiences by playing on gritty realism and subversion of expectations, something that has been en vogue since The Dark Knight and the Bourne movies, but in doing so has created something that is basically antithetical to the 40 years of cinematic Bond that preceded it.

    From 1962-2002, we saw a Bond that was an unflappable winner. Aside from a few exceptions like OHMSS, he always saved the day, got the girl, and seemed to enjoy his job. It was fun escapism with imaginative gadgets and over-the-top villains. You knew how it was going to end; you knew Bond would win, you were just along for the ride. There was something comforting in that.

    The Craig era brought grit, emotion, and realism to the Bond franchise. We saw a Bond that was more human in a world that was more grounded. It followed the current popular trope of having a tortured, troubled main character. Craig’s Bond never got a happy ending, except for Spectre, which was
    undone in NTTD.
    All of this ultimately culminated in the other currently popular trope of
    killing the main character for shock value. The MCU did it with Tony Stark, so why not Bond?

    Now we’re left with two divided groups of fans; people who loved the style of 62-02 that no longer see any semblance of the character they loved in Craig’s Bond, and people who became fans largely because of Craig’s era, who are fans of something completely unlike the 20 Bond movies that came before it.”

    The original question for anyone interested:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/r4vvw5/a_question_for_hardcore_and_casual_bond_fans/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

    Interesting post, @BMW_with_missiles. I was talking elsewhere with someone about this the other day. I find the Craig films take the fantasy of the Bond films and "intensify" it to such a point where the entertainment value to be derived from these recent entries is of a substantially different (but not entirely different) nature than before. Bond could always get hurt in the first 20 films, but now there is more palpable danger and tension. Bond would regularly hook up with women with no worries, but now tragedy and betrayal might be around the corner. Even the villains are scarier and more unsettling in their madness.

    But general audiences aside, there are fans who like both the first 20 films and the Craig films. QoS and SF are my two least favorite Bond films, and I'll always prefer a bit more the "traditional", more escapist style of the older films (being a big fan of the Brosnan era, I can understand the disappointment with the Craig films that some have experienced), but I still very much enjoyed CR, SP and NTTD. I really appreciate the grit and the deeper insight into Bond, provided these co-exist with enough humor and playful touches, which I felt those three films had in good quantities.

    Speaking of all this, it's worth mentioning that style and tone aren't a binary, discrete thing. They exist in a continuum. I find the older films and the newer films have the same elements. It is the "mix" of these elements that changes, so to speak. There is less emphasis on this and more emphasis on that. The mix even changes among the first 20 films, of course, but to a lesser degree.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,757
    Now we’re left with two divided groups of fans; people who loved the style of 62-02 that no longer see any semblance of the character they loved in Craig’s Bond, and people who became fans largely because of Craig’s era, who are fans of something completely unlike the 20 Bond movies that came before it.”
    Disagree, not shown on these discussion boards. Many longtime Bond fans like me love the latest mission and none of Craig's films detract from 1-20 for me.

    So I'd call that a made-up notion of division. Modern Bond films attract a campaign against them during their release. I'm comfortable taking the long view on the things.

  • FeyadorFeyador Montreal, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 735
    Now we’re left with two divided groups of fans; people who loved the style of 62-02 that no longer see any semblance of the character they loved in Craig’s Bond, and people who became fans largely because of Craig’s era, who are fans of something completely unlike the 20 Bond movies that came before it.”
    Disagree, not shown on these discussion boards. Many longtime Bond fans like me love the latest mission and none of Craig's films detract from 1-20 for me.

    So I'd call that a made-up notion of division. Modern Bond films attract a campaign against them during their release. I'm comfortable taking the long view on the things.
    It's a bit of false dichotomy for me, too. I'm certainly one of those longtime, hardcore fans who loves, not uncritically, the entirety of the series. I have my favourites, of course; but the breadth & variety is something that I celebrate. And I find all the Craig films no less "escapist" than what came before - but it's now just a different kind of escapism reflected in the popular culture of our time.
  • Posts: 15,097
    BT3366 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I wonder if this is controversial. I think Connery acted worse in YOLT than he did in DAF and NSNA.

    I wouldn't disagree. I maintain it isn't so much his acting in YOLT as he's just not given a whole lot to do but operate gadgetry, fight and run. But even in the interactions with Tanaka in his office, train and later home, he doesn't seem particularly his witty self or come across with as much presence as we're used to.

    I'm always mystified by those who claim he's unengaged or just picking up a paycheck in DAF. He's much wittier than in YOLT and having a better time than he was in YOLT. The check of course didn't hurt and the fact they were playing entirely on his terms probably also helped.

    NSNA had more of his input, so there was that, although he was much more involved in the production side.

    Here's my take on it: Connery in YOLT does not act worse than in DAF but he acts less, he acts bored. In DAF, he's playing a parody of Bond and is in a better mood because he's picking up a bigger paycheck.

    My controversial opinion: the invisible car in DAD and the other sci-fi stuff shocked me far more than anything that came after, including NTTD.
  • Posts: 15,097
    Giving a role to Hugh Dennis in NTTD was a stroke of genius.
  • Posts: 54
    None of NTTD’s dramatic hooks work for me.

    I don’t care about Bond and Madeleine’s relationship, and none of the other major character bits / arcs resonate with me in the slightest. One after another, they all feel terribly contrived and designed to shock, and in no way feels like a natural conclusion to the DC era IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.