Controversial opinions about Bond films

1510511513515516707

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Revelator wrote: »
    FourDot wrote: »
    I don't know what's so hard to grasp about the idea that the market has changed. Of course the 60s films could be the trend setters: Broccoli and Saltzman had established their own market for a certain kind of blockbuster that wasn't just a star vehicle.
    In the late 70s that changed and ever since Bond has been trying to compete. If you want it to go back to the way it was thats nice: it'll be a niche product and it won't continue much longer as a franchise.

    So the only way forward is for the series to continue imitating other films and not try freshening its formula fresher? Perhaps Bond should gain superpowers as well, since that's where the market is.
    I don't want to "go back to the way it was," since that's the problem with many Bond films--hackish repetition of the old formula. I would just like to see a Bond film that has an excitement and freshness to it that GF and FRWL did for their first-time audiences (but not necessarily the same mix or kind of elements as in those films). That would mean not having blatant call-backs to past Bond films and not blatantly imitating popular films of the moment. Instead I'd like a better-made thriller that stands on its own merits, with more memorable characterization, sharper direction and editing, ingenious stuntwork, breathless pacing, and increased use of the imagination--whether it's employed for gadgets, surreal or macabre elements and characters, plot twists, and a general sense of surprise and delight. All of those elements were conspicuously missing from the last Bond film.

    Still, that may be even harder then making a completely new, stand alone film. tbh I thonk it's quite amazing what they pulled off with CR, QoS and SF. SP wasn't that much to my liking, but elements of that film were really good.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    The James Bond films are of great nostalgic importance to me. I think, alongside The Lord of the Rings trilogy, these films made me a film fan. A film fan that became a cinephile later on. So without 007, no Ingmar Bergman, no Alfred Hitchcock, no Michelangelo Antonioni, no Brian De Palma and no Dario Argento for me.

    All the films from Dr. No to Die Another Day are part of my cinematic persona. Even though some of these films, like Moonraker or Die Another Day, are (heavily) flawed I still like them, because the teenager in me has such a connection with these films.

    Ever since the reboot in 2006 I just do not have the same connection with the Bond films. I can objectively admit that CR, QOS and SF are good movies and I do not dislike them, but I cannot warm to them in the same way as I could warm to the films of the original timeline. Maybe I would be more forgiving towards SP as well, but I just can't feel it.

    I love the films from 1962-2002 despite some of their flaws, while I don't feel the same about the rebooted series despite their strenghts.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The James Bond films are of great nostalgic importance to me. I think, alongside The Lord of the Rings trilogy, these films made me a film fan. A film fan that became a cinephile later on. So without 007, no Ingmar Bergman, no Alfred Hitchcock, no Michelangelo Antonioni, no Brian De Palma and no Dario Argento for me.

    All the films from Dr. No to Die Another Day are part of my cinematic persona. Even though some of these films, like Moonraker or Die Another Day, are (heavily) flawed I still like them, because the teenager in me has such a connection with these films.

    Ever since the reboot in 2006 I just do not have the same connection with the Bond films. I can objectively admit that CR, QOS and SF are good movies and I do not dislike them, but I cannot warm to them in the same way as I could warm to the films of the original timeline. Maybe I would be more forgiving towards SP as well, but I just can't feel it.

    I love the films from 1962-2002 despite some of their flaws, while I don't feel the same about the rebooted series despite their strenghts.

    I understand this completely. It's an age thing. I feel the way you do about all the Bond films but my timeline is from 1962-1989. Everything after that - I had developed critical facilities especially in cinema appreciation and film criticism. I remember reading on these pages that people felt the same way post 1979 or even 1967.

    Hence my appreciation pre1990 Bond is clouded by nostalgia and feelings of uncritical love. From Brosnan onwards is clouded by the fact I was well educated in cinema by 1995. There was one exception and this was CR - because it felt like an explosion of the spirit of Bond captured in Fleming's text. Being a Dalton acolyte I had wide eyes and even wider smile when this premiered - especially in the first twenty minutes and last two minutes of that film. It was electric in the cinema watching Bond being reborn that way.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2019 Posts: 8,401
    Its definitely a drop in quality in the modern era. Even a film like Die Another Day is enjoyable and comforting to watch. I don't get that sense from any of the Craig films. The only Craig Bond I rank ahead of any of the Brosnan outings is CR, and that is mostly down to Fleming and Campbell. I have no faith in the current team to deliver anything close to resembling what made us fans in the first place. It seems like 40 years of cinematic heritage has been completely lost. I had no problem with a detour, and CR was a breathe of fresh air, but like with Lazenby or Dalton it should have only lasted for a movie or two. This has become ridiculously drawn out, so much as to actually outlast the tenure of Moore hmself, something we never thought we would see. Its reaching the point when I'm beginning to wonder if anyone remembers what Bond is anymore? Its like we took a detour, but its been so long that we can't find our way back to the main road. I think Bond 26 with a new actor is perhaps the last hope for me, and if that doesn't work, I will be only a fan of the character and series I and the rest of the world knew from 1962 - 2002.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Its definitely a drop in quality in the modern era. Even a film like Die Another Day is enjoyable and comforting to watch. I don't get that sense from any of the Craig films. The only Craig Bond I rank ahead of any of the Brosnan outings is CR, and that is mostly down to Fleming and Campbell. I have no faith in the current team to deliver anything close to resembling what made us fans in the first place. It seems like 40 years of cinematic heritage has been completely lost. I had no problem with a detour, and CR was a breathe of fresh air, but like with Lazenby or Dalton it should have only lasted for a movie or two. This has become ridiculously drawn out, so much as to actually outlast the tenure of Moore hmself, something we never thought we would see. Its reaching the point when I'm beginning to wonder if anyone remembers what Bond is anymore? Its like we took a detour, but its been so long that we can't find our way back to the main road. I think Bond 26 with a new actor is perhaps the last hope for me, and if that doesn't work, I will be only a fan of the character and series I and the rest of the world knew from 1962 - 2002.

    You will be interested in this thread I created,matey :

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/17747/in-search-of-james-bond-007-is-he-disappearing#latest
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Wow. That's exactly how I'm feeling right now. Part of it is nostalgia for the 90's and appreciation of everything before. But the rest (2008-) is a lack of fun in the new timeline. I can take inconsistency (OHMSS vs DAF anyone?). But the new films lack the "spark" of the old films.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    w2bond wrote: »
    Wow. That's exactly how I'm feeling right now. Part of it is nostalgia for the 90's and appreciation of everything before. But the rest (2008-) is a lack of fun in the new timeline. I can take inconsistency (OHMSS vs DAF anyone?). But the new films lack the "spark" of the old films.

    In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.

    The character of Bond presented in Casino Royale may disappoint the average member of the public, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

    It is pure class.... and the best Bond film since Connery's first 4 films (and OHMSS).

    Now onto the pre-curser to CR......There is nothing in Die Another Day that feels original or fresh. And the John Woo influenced cinematics have no place in a Bond film. And what's with the use of CGI in place of real stuntmen doing the impossible, as they did in every other film? Sure, it may look "super cool" in concept, but in fact it looks fake and out of place.

    Of the four Brosnan Bond-films, this is by far the worst. The filmmakers aren't even trying to base the film in real life anymore, (dna manipulation and invisible cars!?!). Instead, the attention is focused on mindless action scenes with seriously crappy CGI and effects.

    Moreover, the film looks awful, the dialogue consists of bad one liners and lame sexual innuendos, and the acting belongs in a made for TV movie, (Halle Berry is especially bad). Die Another Day easily qualifies as one of the worst films I've ever seen. James Bond has definitely passed his sell-by-date.

    I have nostalgia for Connery, Moore, Dalton etc......but not for 2002......they nearly killed Bond with this film! there Is no nostalgia here.
  • Posts: 385
    I always love the “DAD NEARLY KILLED THE FRANCHISE” posts. So nearly killed it that the film made more money than TND or TWINE despite a tougher economy. :D

    Agree with most of the above posters - Craig’s era needs to end, but it’s been so long I have doubts we can ever get back to Cubby Bond, the Bond that people grew up loving and shared with family.

    They’re not as bad as the latest Star Wars films, which represent some of the strongest cinematic destruction on record, but just because they’ve been less flashy doesn’t mean the effects haven’t been as damaging.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    MooreFun wrote: »
    I always love the “DAD NEARLY KILLED THE FRANCHISE” posts. So nearly killed it that the film made more money than TND or TWINE despite a tougher economy. :D

    Agree with most of the above posters - Craig’s era needs to end, but it’s been so long I have doubts we can ever get back to Cubby Bond, the Bond that people grew up loving and shared with family.

    They’re not as bad as the latest Star Wars films, which represent some of the strongest cinematic destruction on record, but just because they’ve been less flashy doesn’t mean the effects haven’t been as damaging.

    The production team realised DAD was crap, hence, why they changed direction. Brosnan went on record saying they went to far. I didn’t mean kill the franchise financially, just that the direction was in danger of taking away the past brilliance and venturing into parody. Financial success films doesn’t mean much in terms of quality.....look at Marvel and the new Star Wars films......Casino Royale brought back the spirit of Fleming but made more money at the same time....perfect.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    suavejmf wrote: »
    In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing;

    I would argue that removing the guano stuff and the *GIANT SQUID BATTLE* probably made the film quite a bit more hard-boiled than the (excellent) novel.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 15,125
    suavejmf wrote: »
    In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing;

    I would argue that removing the guano stuff and the *GIANT SQUID BATTLE* probably made the film quite a bit more hard-boiled than the (excellent) novel.

    I often wonder what would have happened to the franchise had they kept the giant squid in the movie, done by say Ray Harryhausen.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    Funny how people confuse faux Nolan with Fleming’s Bond. The James Bond of Ian Fleming was refined, classy, sophisticated and stylish with a considerable sense of savoir vivre. The rebooted 007, portrayed by Daniel Craig, has nothing of that.

    Sure they omitted the wisecracking, which was admittedly un-Fleming, but they also eliminated Bond’s refined style and turned him into a working class brute sans manners.

    Mainstream audiences seem to think if you make James Bond an introvert and leave out the punchlines that you’ve got Fleming’s Bond, while they forget that Bond was also a little bit of a snob who felt at home in fancy surroundings. Craig’s Bond is quite the opposite, looking more like a kickboxer who made way too much money.

    Also, there is no way you can or should update James Bond to the 21st Century. Fleming’s Bond was already an anachronism from the moment he first appeared and that’s partly why the books and the original films work so well. You cannot modernise 007, because in his essence 007 was never modern to begin with. Thankfully so.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,401
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Funny how people confuse faux Nolan with Fleming’s Bond. The James Bond of Ian Fleming was refined, classy, sophisticated and stylish with a considerable sense of savoir vivre. The rebooted 007, portrayed by Daniel Craig, has nothing of that.

    Sure they omitted the wisecracking, which was admittedly un-Fleming, but they also eliminated Bond’s refined style and turned him into a working class brute sans manners.

    Mainstream audiences seem to think if you make James Bond an introvert and leave out the punchlines that you’ve got Fleming’s Bond, while they forget that Bond was also a little bit of a snob who felt at home in fancy surroundings. Craig’s Bond is quite the opposite, looking more like a kickboxer who made way too much money.

    Also, there is no way you can or should update James Bond to the 21st Century. Fleming’s Bond was already an anachronism from the moment he first appeared and that’s partly why the books and the original films work so well. You cannot modernise 007, because in his essence 007 was never modern to begin with. Thankfully so.

    Exactly well said! Eventually they need to get back to the character which existed for twenty films which everyone remembers and loves.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Funny how people confuse faux Nolan with Fleming’s Bond. The James Bond of Ian Fleming was refined, classy, sophisticated and stylish with a considerable sense of savoir vivre. The rebooted 007, portrayed by Daniel Craig, has nothing of that.

    Sure they omitted the wisecracking, which was admittedly un-Fleming, but they also eliminated Bond’s refined style and turned him into a working class brute sans manners.

    Mainstream audiences seem to think if you make James Bond an introvert and leave out the punchlines that you’ve got Fleming’s Bond, while they forget that Bond was also a little bit of a snob who felt at home in fancy surroundings. Craig’s Bond is quite the opposite, looking more like a kickboxer who made way too much money.

    Also, there is no way you can or should update James Bond to the 21st Century. Fleming’s Bond was already an anachronism from the moment he first appeared and that’s partly why the books and the original films work so well. You cannot modernise 007, because in his essence 007 was never modern to begin with. Thankfully so.

    Very good post! People also forget that literary Bond and cinematic Bond are two completely different animals.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But it's worth noting that the Bond films that stay closest to the source material are the ones that stand the test of time; at least on here.

    DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and CR (to an extent). And the best parts of FYEO, TLD and LTK do likewise.

    Wait so there was no space laser battle in the MR novel?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But it's worth noting that the Bond films that stay closest to the source material are the ones that stand the test of time; at least on here.

    DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and CR (to an extent). And the best parts of FYEO, TLD and LTK do likewise.

    Wait so there was no space laser battle in the MR novel?

    Only in Wood's adaptation. It is one of the coolest moments in the film.

    With that being said in regards to controversy.

    MR is my favorite Moore film and my number 5 overall.

    FYEO is my least favorite Moore and overall film.
  • HarlowHarlow North Carolina
    Posts: 7
    MR is one of my favorite movies. I have never quite understood the extreme dislike so many people have for it. I also agree with you on FYEO. Carole Bouquet is like watching a corpse. She would have been an excellent addition to Weekend at Bernies.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Funny how people confuse faux Nolan with Fleming’s Bond. The James Bond of Ian Fleming was refined, classy, sophisticated and stylish with a considerable sense of savoir vivre. The rebooted 007, portrayed by Daniel Craig, has nothing of that.

    Sure they omitted the wisecracking, which was admittedly un-Fleming, but they also eliminated Bond’s refined style and turned him into a working class brute sans manners.

    Mainstream audiences seem to think if you make James Bond an introvert and leave out the punchlines that you’ve got Fleming’s Bond, while they forget that Bond was also a little bit of a snob who felt at home in fancy surroundings. Craig’s Bond is quite the opposite, looking more like a kickboxer who made way too much money.

    Also, there is no way you can or should update James Bond to the 21st Century. Fleming’s Bond was already an anachronism from the moment he first appeared and that’s partly why the books and the original films work so well. You cannot modernise 007, because in his essence 007 was never modern to begin with. Thankfully so.

    But Craig’s portrayal of the character is very much Flemings in CR bar the blonde hair? Craig’s Bond is sophisticated and stylish? He has a taste for fine champagne, tailored suits, (including personal tux), caviar, Vodka Martinis, the finest scotch whiskey, he charms beautiful women, he attended Public School (that mean Private School to any Americans out there), he is the freehold owner of a Scottish Mansion, he has a Chelsea flat. Indeed he refuses to stay in cheap hotels even if it means risking his cover! The only complaint I have with Craig’s Bond is around his flat....he would have it just so.....it wouldn’t be empty.....it would be more like Connery’s in Dr No.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Birdleson wrote: »
    But it's worth noting that the Bond films that stay closest to the source material are the ones that stand the test of time; at least on here.

    DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS and CR (to an extent). And the best parts of FYEO, TLD and LTK do likewise.

    Correct.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    Harlow wrote: »
    MR is one of my favorite movies. I have never quite understood the extreme dislike so many people have for it. I also agree with you on FYEO. Carole Bouquet is like watching a corpse. She would have been an excellent addition to Weekend at Bernies.

    The whole thing feels bland to me. Especially coming off Moonraker. I wasn't alive when these were released but it's like going from eating a Smores dunked in caramel to a plain graham cracker.
  • HarlowHarlow North Carolina
    Posts: 7
    FYEO is very bland. I think this has to do with Carole being unable to act and her and RM having no sexual chemistry. It is like watching a really awkward Tinder date. You know they will hook up. And you know it was be dreadful.

  • Posts: 2,918
    Harlow wrote: »
    Carole Bouquet is like watching a corpse.

    Lois Chiles is like a mannequin imitating a corpse.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Harlow wrote: »
    MR is one of my favorite movies. I have never quite understood the extreme dislike so many people have for it. I also agree with you on FYEO. Carole Bouquet is like watching a corpse. She would have been an excellent addition to Weekend at Bernies.

    The whole thing feels bland to me. Especially coming off Moonraker. I wasn't alive when these were released but it's like going from eating a Smores dunked in caramel to a plain graham cracker.

    FYEO is a breath of fresh air after the part parody that is MR. Parts of Flemings plots were used alongside a harder edged Moore. Moore’s second best film after LALD.
  • HarlowHarlow North Carolina
    Posts: 7
    I am not so sure about the fresh air part. It feels like a wooden TB sans Domino's amazing swimsuit collection. Not popular, I know. LALD is also my least favorite Bond.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Harlow wrote: »
    MR is one of my favorite movies. I have never quite understood the extreme dislike so many people have for it. I also agree with you on FYEO. Carole Bouquet is like watching a corpse. She would have been an excellent addition to Weekend at Bernies.

    The whole thing feels bland to me. Especially coming off Moonraker. I wasn't alive when these were released but it's like going from eating a Smores dunked in caramel to a plain graham cracker.

    FYEO is a breath of fresh air after the part parody that is MR. Parts of Flemings plots were used alongside a harder edged Moore. Moore’s second best film after LALD.

    I also can't stand the music. Im always looking for Rocky Balboa pushing a log up the hil in the background of the ski chase. Stupid Conti. The gunbarrel tune is one of the best in the series I'll give him that. The warehouse raid is the best part of the film. The Citroen chase and the recovery of the ATAC are abysmal.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 17,758
    The Citroen chase is no doubt my favourite car chase. Love it.
  • Posts: 385
    FYEO feels like all the budget and fun was front loaded in the film. The Citroen and ski chases are great...and then there's a whole lot of film left.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 2,918
    I've never gotten that impression from FYEO--the last third of the film also has the submersible battle, the keel-hauling scene (not attempted in the low-budget LALD, where it originally belonged) and the ascent of Meteora, which might not be as pricey as a space battle, but is far grittier, more scenic and suspenseful, and does a splendid job of comleting the job of taking Bond to basics. I love the Conti score as well--it's got more pep in it than Barry's scores for the Moore films (aside from AVTAK).
  • Posts: 7,507
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Harlow wrote: »
    MR is one of my favorite movies. I have never quite understood the extreme dislike so many people have for it. I also agree with you on FYEO. Carole Bouquet is like watching a corpse. She would have been an excellent addition to Weekend at Bernies.

    The whole thing feels bland to me. Especially coming off Moonraker. I wasn't alive when these were released but it's like going from eating a Smores dunked in caramel to a plain graham cracker.

    FYEO is a breath of fresh air after the part parody that is MR. Parts of Flemings plots were used alongside a harder edged Moore. Moore’s second best film after LALD.

    I also can't stand the music. Im always looking for Rocky Balboa pushing a log up the hil in the background of the ski chase. Stupid Conti. The gunbarrel tune is one of the best in the series I'll give him that. The warehouse raid is the best part of the film. The Citroen chase and the recovery of the ATAC are abysmal.


    The Citroen chase is abysmal?? What have you been smoking?
  • Posts: 7,507
    The worst parts about FYEO for me are the sometimes out of place, quirky humor (not all of it is bad though), Bibi and the unecesarry underwater action scene which drags on for far too long. Apart from that it´s a classic, and Moore´s best performance!
Sign In or Register to comment.