the scene you could live without.........

1356

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,973
    royale65 wrote:
    GoldenEye – most of Boris’s dialogue, especially when we first meet the Severnaya staff “Slugs!”

    He actually says "Slugheads!", though I'm sure that doesn't alter you not liking the scene. I love that part.
  • DAF - Blofeld in drag.
    TMWTGG - Roger getting bailed out by the two schoolgirls and JW Pepper's involvement in the car chase.
    FYEO - Bibi Doll.
    DAD - The last two halves.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I agree that there are a lot of scenes that could have been done without. Yet those scenes contribute to the special atmosphere of Bond films, giving them something weird in various ways.
    So I wouldn´t throw any one of them.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 176
    The only one that comes to my mind is Margaret Thatcher and the parrot. That was just cringe-worty.

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    SaintMark wrote:
    While I like CR the "sinking house scene" is too much not unlike the final airplane scene in DAD.

    Yeah, one is dramatic, fun and full of tension and the other is overblown, boring and completely stupid.

    IMO the CR sinking house scene isn't fun, and it is overblown. They're like eachother because they both use too much CGI.

    I agree with @SaintMark, they should've just used the books original ending. There was enough action in the film as it was.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Creasy47 wrote:
    royale65 wrote:
    GoldenEye – most of Boris’s dialogue, especially when we first meet the Severnaya staff “Slugs!”

    He actually says "Slugheads!", though I'm sure that doesn't alter you not liking the scene. I love that part.

    Not one bit

    ;)
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    GF is perfect, the younger generation are in the opinion that classics need to be done as recent actioners should be made: large and stupid. :D

    I'd kind of prefer it if GF was a little bit more lively, instead of having Bond captured thoughout half the film. What did Richard Maibaum do when he sat down to write the script, think, "How can we make a James Bond movie where Bond isn't the real star? Let's make him a captive from the halfway point on! Oh, and to top it all off, let's put in a mute Korean who's only special because of his hat!"

    Classic = Always Good? Wrong!

    A classic is more often good than wrong per defenition. That said 007 is a secret agent and his mission was to find out what Auric was up to and he decided that being close to the man was helping with his job. Instead of escaping and getting close to the man again, he took the right course of action. And he was caught and about to be made in two 003 1/2's. :D

    The thing is that GF actually stayed pretty close to the source as most of the first four movies in this franchise did. In GF's case they actually improved upon the ending as made up by Fleming. (You know the man who gave us 007 and the one responsible for all those discussions which actor was closest to Fleming's character). I admit that GF is not one of his best books and that the movie might be better. But as a movie it pretty much set the tone for a whole franchise and bunch of movies that followeed. Most movies that spoof James Bond actually spoof GF more than any other movie in the 007 franchise, simply because it is so iconic.

    But then again not everybody thinks that Hitchcock's Vertigo is the best film ever or even Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. (he was an excellent choice for Le Chiffre and should have played in an EON movie as a baddie imho.) So at the ned of the day you can deny a classic it still remains one in the sense that a few of the EON series ever will be.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?
  • Posts: 7,653
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?

    Confusing the 1954 version with Peter Lorre with the 1967 version with Orson Welles me thinks. O:-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?

    Confusing the 1954 version with Peter Lorre with the 1967 version with Orson Welles me thinks. O:-)

    I have a sensibility to know just enough about both to ascertain that neither are worth the watch. CR 54 isn't even the true character at brass tax, and I have no need for stupid parodies in the ilk of CR 67.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Casino Royale '54 is enjoyable and only 50 minutes long. It's worth watching too.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Casino Royale '54 is enjoyable and only 50 minutes long. It's worth watching too.
    It isn't even Bond though. He's "Jimmy", a Yank, and Felix is the one working for MI6. Thanks, but no thanks.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 299
    All the scenes in GoldenEye with Alan Cumming in it. As much as I respect him as an actor, I absolutely despise the character of Boris Grishenko. In my opinion, he is by far the worst character of any Bond film. I find him so annoying, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Yes, I will even take J.W. Pepper over him. To me, Boris is the Jar Jar Binks of Bond and has no business being in these type of movies. For me he is almost singlehandedly the reason why I can't place GE at the level of some of the other films.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2012 Posts: 13,355
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Casino Royale '54 is enjoyable and only 50 minutes long. It's worth watching too.
    It isn't even Bond though. He's "Jimmy", a Yank, and Felix is the one working for MI6.

    So what? Why not judge it after you've seen it. Have you seen Never Say Never Again? Well, this Casino Royale is better than that film in my opinion.
    Thanks, but no thanks.

    Your loss. It's surprisingly faithful to the novel, in some ways moreso than the official version.

    Instead of being so judgemental, why not watch it and then tell me what you think? You could do far worse things than spend or hour of your life watching this first attempt at Bond. I wouldn't advise you to watch it if I thought it was rubbish.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    FYEO - Bibi Doll.

    Dahl. Although your post made me realize that her name is a play on "baby doll."
  • I could do without the "man-looks-at-bottle" scenes, which happens in most of the movies with Roger Moore.
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?

    Confusing the 1954 version with Peter Lorre with the 1967 version with Orson Welles me thinks. O:-)

    I have a sensibility to know just enough about both to ascertain that neither are worth the watch. CR 54 isn't even the true character at brass tax, and I have no need for stupid parodies in the ilk of CR 67.

    Too bad you are not a Bondfan, otherwise you would have taken the time to see it. Both movies have some great stuff to offer and especially the '67 has some beautifull women that the EON series could have used.

    I have a strong dislike concerning QoS and I still have seen it, too often.

  • Posts: 4,762
    BangOnTime wrote:
    I could do without the "man-looks-at-bottle" scenes, which happens in most of the movies with Roger Moore.

    Yeah I know what you mean, this can get extremely repetitive and cheesy, especially when you watch them in order and have to see this sad little comedy gig in each one. If I recall correctly, I believe it is in TSWLM, MR, and FYEO.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    00Beast wrote:
    BangOnTime wrote:
    I could do without the "man-looks-at-bottle" scenes, which happens in most of the movies with Roger Moore.

    Yeah I know what you mean, this can get extremely repetitive and cheesy, especially when you watch them in order and have to see this sad little comedy gig in each one. If I recall correctly, I believe it is in TSWLM, MR, and FYEO.

    It was. The guy was a second unit director called Victor Tourjansky (sp.) as I recall.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?

    Confusing the 1954 version with Peter Lorre with the 1967 version with Orson Welles me thinks. O:-)

    I have a sensibility to know just enough about both to ascertain that neither are worth the watch. CR 54 isn't even the true character at brass tax, and I have no need for stupid parodies in the ilk of CR 67.

    Too bad you are not a Bondfan, otherwise you would have taken the time to see it. Both movies have some great stuff to offer and especially the '67 has some beautifull women that the EON series could have used.

    I have a strong dislike concerning QoS and I still have seen it, too often.
    Here we go again. Someone isn't a Bond fan unless they watch so and so and get a so and so amount of thrill out of it. If I want to watch them, I will, but right now I am not too keen on it when there are other films I would rather watch.
  • Posts: 4,762
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?

    Confusing the 1954 version with Peter Lorre with the 1967 version with Orson Welles me thinks. O:-)

    I have a sensibility to know just enough about both to ascertain that neither are worth the watch. CR 54 isn't even the true character at brass tax, and I have no need for stupid parodies in the ilk of CR 67.

    Too bad you are not a Bondfan, otherwise you would have taken the time to see it. Both movies have some great stuff to offer and especially the '67 has some beautifull women that the EON series could have used.

    I have a strong dislike concerning QoS and I still have seen it, too often.
    Here we go again. Someone isn't a Bond fan unless they watch so and so and get a so and so amount of thrill out of it. If I want to watch them, I will, but right now I am not too keen on it when there are other films I would rather watch.

    Don't let it bother you Brady, I myself haven't seen either Casino Royale 1954 or Casino Royale 1967! I wouldn't want to see the latter especially, because as you said, it is only a parody, and cannot be taken seriously anyway. The '54 at least tries to be serious, as I have seen brief clips on Youtube, but again, like you said, it's not the James Bond we know and love.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    00Beast wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Was Orson supposed to be Le Chiffre before Peter Lorre took it up?

    Confusing the 1954 version with Peter Lorre with the 1967 version with Orson Welles me thinks. O:-)

    I have a sensibility to know just enough about both to ascertain that neither are worth the watch. CR 54 isn't even the true character at brass tax, and I have no need for stupid parodies in the ilk of CR 67.

    Too bad you are not a Bondfan, otherwise you would have taken the time to see it. Both movies have some great stuff to offer and especially the '67 has some beautifull women that the EON series could have used.

    I have a strong dislike concerning QoS and I still have seen it, too often.
    Here we go again. Someone isn't a Bond fan unless they watch so and so and get a so and so amount of thrill out of it. If I want to watch them, I will, but right now I am not too keen on it when there are other films I would rather watch.

    Don't let it bother you Brady, I myself haven't seen either Casino Royale 1954 or Casino Royale 1967! I wouldn't want to see the latter especially, because as you said, it is only a parody, and cannot be taken seriously anyway. The '54 at least tries to be serious, as I have seen brief clips on Youtube, but again, like you said, it's not the James Bond we know and love.

    I remember rushing home from my holiday job as a KP to see CR when it first appeared on TV. What a complete let down it was. At the time I wasn't aware it was a spoof, but after 2 minutes I knew. The score is excellent, but by god you have to be keen to sit through it, it seems like 5 different films, hardly surprising as it had at least 5 different directors. The ending just has to be seen to be believed. Total farce. There are a few good bits in it but I have to say I couldn't recommend it to anyone, not even a die-hard Bond fan.
  • Posts: 1,492
    All the scenes in GoldenEye with Alan Cumming in it. As much as I respect him as an actor, I absolutely despise the character of Boris Grishenko. In my opinion, he is by far the worst character of any Bond film. I find him so annoying, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Yes, I will even take J.W. Pepper over him. To me, Boris is the Jar Jar Binks of Bond and has no business being in these type of movies. For me he is almost singlehandedly the reason why I can't place GE at the level of some of the other films.

    Oh thank god. I thought it was just me who thought Boris was shit. But what can he do with the dialogue he is given?

  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited August 2012 Posts: 4,423
    @actonsteve

    It's not just you, old boy ;-)
  • I liked Boris. He was funny. And cmon, J.W Pepper (although I don't hate him like some people), was much more annoying.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Hm... Mildly racist jokes VS. Crappy sex jokes... I'm sorry, at least JW was a funny racist, whereas Boris was a boring pervert.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    I could do without the "humorous" Paris car chase in AVTAK.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    royale65 wrote:
    Dr No/You Only Live Twice – the countdown in the films climax.


    Thunderball – remove the decade worth of tedious footage, of frogmen nailing a sodding net in place.

    Diamonds Are Forever – Moonbuggy chase; Plenty O Toole - I can’t believe Bond would be interested in someone so dumb; Norman Burton as Leiter; “comedy” police men; Blofeld in drag

    Live and Let Die – Most of Sherriff Bloody Pepper’s scenes; Mrs Bell scenes

    The Man With The Golden Gun – again Sherriff Pepper’s scenes – again; two teenage girls defeating an entire dojo; locking Goodnight in a closet while Bond gets groiny is unforgivable; slide whistle sound effects during the Corkscrew jump.

    Moonraker – remove Jaws from the PTS; the entire boat chase and subsequent “Bondola “ travesty; Jaws falling in love with Dolly.

    For Your Eyes Only – Thatcher

    Octopussy- Tarzan yell; the crowds doing a Wimbledon during the Tux-Tux chase

    A View To A Kill – again the “comedy” Sherriff during the fire engine chase; Beach Boys in the PTS

    The Living Daylights –the monkeys/crowds scenes – a throwback to the Moore era

    GoldenEye – most of Boris’s dialogue, especially when we first meet the Severnaya staff “Slugs!”; some action scenes need trimming down i.e. tank chase

    The World Is Not Enough – Sir Rog said about cinema acting; your eyebrow moves about 20 feet in the cinema when your up on screen. I don’t think anyone told Pierce.

    Die Another Day - Madonna cameo; recast Zao; remove the whole CGI debacle; trimming down the climax; get rid off Graves’ RoboSuit.

    Casino Royale - Sinking house - less is sometimes better - do it like the book

    Quantum of Solace – parachute jump



    Good lord. This is a first on here - someone posts something that the Wizard cannot find fault with in any way!
    Well except that it is actually Tuk-Tuk not Tux-Tux and you omitted cuting every frame of film soiled by Jinx.

    Personally I wouldve added the GF countdown as well - easily the worst, it took Oddjob about 2 minutes to get down that flight of stairs earlier on but some middle aged CIA guy does it in about 3 seconds going by the timer.

    You're bang on about TB especially. Theres so many people rate this film as top 5 material but this scene is not alone in being utterly tedious and then compunding it by dragging on. And. On. For. Ever.
    In fact I think geologists now use it as unit of measurement - 'When did the cretaceous period begin? Oh it was about 5 TB net scenes after the triassic.
    00Beast wrote:
    Don't let it bother you Brady, I myself haven't seen either Casino Royale 1954 or Casino Royale 1967!

    Just bear in mind though Brady that 00Beast is someone who rates OHMSS as rock bottom so having his endorsement is rather like having the Greek finance minister advertising 'Loans 4 U'.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 774
    00Beast wrote:
    Don't let it bother you Brady, I myself haven't seen either Casino Royale 1954 or Casino Royale 1967!

    Just bear in mind though Brady that 00Beast is someone who rates OHMSS as rock bottom so having his endorsement is rather like having the Greek finance minister advertising 'Loans 4 U'.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I've seen them both (and I have OHMSS as my 6th favourite), and I can promise that you aren't missing out on anything. Wouldn't recommend either.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Volante wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    Don't let it bother you Brady, I myself haven't seen either Casino Royale 1954 or Casino Royale 1967!

    Just bear in mind though Brady that 00Beast is someone who rates OHMSS as rock bottom so having his endorsement is rather like having the Greek finance minister advertising 'Loans 4 U'.

    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I've seen them both (and I have OHMSS as my 6th favourite), and I can promise that you aren't missing out on anything. Wouldn't recommend either.

    OHMSS only at 6th? Would you buy a used car from Volante people? :))
Sign In or Register to comment.