Controversial opinions about Bond films

1187188190192193705

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    To be honest I've always found Blofeld rather overrated. In film he has never delivered on the promise of FRWL and TB and in print he has one good scene in TB, a couple of average ones in OHMSS and then one good one in YOLT.

    Certainly Dr No, Goldfinger and Scaramanga blow any of his cinematic iterations out of the water and Drax, Dr No and Goldfinger do the same in the books.

    All he's really got on his CV of any substance is killing Tracy.

  • Posts: 14,799
    Overused yes, overrated no. Not in the novels or his early incarnations anyway.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Couldn't agree more Blofeld is rubbish!
  • And yet FRWL, TB and OHMSS are usually high on people's lists. I agree though he should be retired now after the SP botch. It would have been wiser to wait and plan how they were going to bring him back one last time and then end it with his death. Should have just been a non personal epic mission.
  • Posts: 623
    I think, if you look at the four DC films as a single series, (which is, after all, what a 're-boot' means, I suppose), the Blofeld ending works. I'd be happy not seeing him or Craig again - not because they failed - but because the ending to SP is a great wrapping-up of the Craig era.

    This week, having time off, I re-watched TWINE and LALD, and was surprised to see that LALD has aged better than TWINE. It's certainly the much more entertaining film.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    After being left cold after seeing SP I vowed never to watch another Bond movie until the films feature different writers & a different director.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Couldn't agree more Blofeld is rubbish!

    On the contrary Blofeld is an amazing character and one of Fleming's greatest villains.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more Blofeld is rubbish!

    On the contrary Blofeld is an amazing character and one of Fleming's greatest villains.

    He is a great Fleming creation, just been brought poorly to the screen.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    The Brosnan Bond films are functionally bad films. I know, not really controversial, and you wouldn't expect me to say that. Hear me out. The Brosnan films tick a lot of the boxes for what makes a film bad; bad dialogue, some flawed plots, and even some bad acting. Yet I rate these films very highly. Many of the Bond movies that I rate lower tick a lot of the boxes for what makes a good movie; solid plots, good acting, and good dialogue. Yet I rate them low. It all comes down to one thing; Did it entertain me? The core purpose of cinema is entertainment. There is no greater cinema sin than a film failing to entertain me. If I'm entertained, I can overlook some bad lines, an iffy plot, and Denise Richards.

    Let me use an analogy. The Aston Martin DB5 is a stereotypical British car; it has electrical problems, leaks fluids, and it is unreliable. Not to mention the expense of repairs and difficulty finding parts. It is functionally a bad car. The Toyota Camery, on the other hand, checks all the boxes for being a good car; it's cheap, it's reliable, it's easy and affordable to maintain, and it will always get you where you need to go. It meets all the requirements of a good car...but which one would give you more fun?
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @BMW_with_missiles

    Great post!

    That's exactly why I can put SPECTRE on No 1 and why GoldenEye has been my No 1 for 20 years.

    TND features some very silly stuff, also some bad acting, but still it never has left my Top 10.

    But a movie like TB which is my No 19 I would rank into the Top 10 if judged objectively.
    GoldenEye would still make the Top 10 in such a ranking, TND certainly not.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If I'm entertained, I can overlook some bad lines, an iffy plot, and Denise Richards.
    I have no problem with Richards. I love Wild Things (in fact, I must watch this again soon). Sadly, imagining Richards as a nuclear physicist is where the bounds of credibility are broken for me.

    I get your point about entertainment value though. That's why I'm beginning to look at MR in a new light after a recent viewing.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Let me use an analogy. The Aston Martin DB5 is a stereotypical British car; it has electrical problems, leaks fluids, and it is unreliable. Not to mention the expense of repairs and difficulty finding parts. It is functionally a bad car. The Toyota Camery, on the other hand, checks all the boxes for being a good car; it's cheap, it's reliable, it's easy and affordable to maintain, and it will always get you where you need to go. It meets all the requirements of a good car...but which one would give you more fun?

    This all sounds very good but doesn't stand up to scrutiny given the Brosnan films are Ladas and still break down all the time: shit to start with and functionally bad.

    The Aston analogy works better for SP - it looks like it's got it all but then when you fire it up it conks out after 100 yards.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    To be honest I've always found Blofeld rather overrated. In film he has never delivered on the promise of FRWL and TB and in print he has one good scene in TB, a couple of average ones in OHMSS and then one good one in YOLT.

    Certainly Dr No, Goldfinger and Scaramanga blow any of his cinematic iterations out of the water and Drax, Dr No and Goldfinger do the same in the books.

    All he's really got on his CV of any substance is killing Tracy.

    Wot? The "Merry Christmas, 007" scene and the "So poetic a pleasure" scene surely rank high.

  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    echo wrote: »
    To be honest I've always found Blofeld rather overrated. In film he has never delivered on the promise of FRWL and TB and in print he has one good scene in TB, a couple of average ones in OHMSS and then one good one in YOLT.

    Certainly Dr No, Goldfinger and Scaramanga blow any of his cinematic iterations out of the water and Drax, Dr No and Goldfinger do the same in the books.

    All he's really got on his CV of any substance is killing Tracy.

    Wot? The "Merry Christmas, 007" scene and the "So poetic a pleasure" scene surely rank high.
    Yes Savalas is excellent, great dialogue throughout, delivered with a cool intelligent menace.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2016 Posts: 5,921
    bondjames wrote: »
    That visceral pretitles CR thrashing in the toilet (the first 00 kill) showed us there was a new game in town (a man who could credibly do it with his bare hands), and not a moment too soon.

    Same thing as Dalton running down the Rock of Gibraltar. A breath of fresh air.
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Robert Brown's M scene at The Hemingway House in LTK is stronger than any one scene that Judi Dench gave us as the character (though I certainly do love her interpretation) and better than anything Bernard Lee gave us post-OHMSS.

    Now that is controversial and I disagree. Dench is so much better. I think Brown's best scene is in OP.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    The Brosnan Bond films are functionally bad films. I know, not really controversial, and you wouldn't expect me to say that. Hear me out. The Brosnan films tick a lot of the boxes for what makes a film bad; bad dialogue, some flawed plots, and even some bad acting. Yet I rate these films very highly. Many of the Bond movies that I rate lower tick a lot of the boxes for what makes a good movie; solid plots, good acting, and good dialogue. Yet I rate them low. It all comes down to one thing; Did it entertain me? The core purpose of cinema is entertainment. There is no greater cinema sin than a film failing to entertain me. If I'm entertained, I can overlook some bad lines, an iffy plot, and Denise Richards.

    Let me use an analogy. The Aston Martin DB5 is a stereotypical British car; it has electrical problems, leaks fluids, and it is unreliable. Not to mention the expense of repairs and difficulty finding parts. It is functionally a bad car. The Toyota Camery, on the other hand, checks all the boxes for being a good car; it's cheap, it's reliable, it's easy and affordable to maintain, and it will always get you where you need to go. It meets all the requirements of a good car...but which one would give you more fun?

    Exactly right.

    I don't find any entertainment in GF, SF or SP despite what the popular opinion is so they rank quite low for me
  • I don't see how GE is functionally bad.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    The only bad Brosnan Bond film is Die Another Day. The rest are great additions to the franchise. They aren't dark and deep but they sure are fun and entertaining. Live a little! Have some fun folks.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I don't see how GE is functionally bad.

    The score is a big one. The main one really.

    Some have issues with the model work. The dialogue is too self referencing, taking the piss out of Bond.

    Personally these factors don't bother me much, but it has fallen to 6th in my ranking
  • w2bond wrote: »
    I don't see how GE is functionally bad.

    The score is a big one. The main one really.

    Some have issues with the model work. The dialogue is too self referencing, taking the piss out of Bond.

    Personally these factors don't bother me much, but it has fallen to 6th in my ranking

    Point taken there (although I think there is only one 'bad' track).
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    There's only one semi decent track and that's the goldeeye overture (drive through St Petersburg doesn't count because that was not Serra)
  • w2bond wrote: »
    There's only one semi decent track and that's the goldeeye overture (drive through St Petersburg doesn't count because that was not Serra)

    Oh, I liked quite a few of Serra's pieces. "Two-Faced" "We Share the Same Passions" "That's What Keeps You Alone" "Boris and the Lethal Pen" "Run, Shoot and Jump"
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited September 2016 Posts: 3,000
    Murdock wrote: »
    They aren't dark and deep but they sure are fun and entertaining. Live a little! Have some fun folks.

    @Murdock Well that was exactly my point. The Brosnan films weren't made to be excellent pieces of cinematic art, they were made to be something better; fun. The point I'm trying to get across is that people need to get past thinking of films, especially Bond, as "art". They need to stop expecting emotion or anything deep or artful from an action movie series, and just have some fun. Everyone seems to act too grown up for that these days, though. We could watch a film that is "good" on paper, like Citizen Kane, and be bored to death, or we could go to the cinema to have some fun with a film that, on paper, is "bad" (i.e. Die Another Day). I will remind everyone; The Brosnan Bond films are my favorite Bond films, and my favorite films period. I haven't gone over to the dark side. :))
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Murdock wrote: »
    They aren't dark and deep but they sure are fun and entertaining. Live a little! Have some fun folks.
    Well that was exactly my point. The Brosnan films weren't made to be excellent pieces of cinematic art, they were made to be something better; fun. The point I'm trying to get across is that people need to get past thinking of films, especially Bond, as "art". They need to stop expecting emotion or anything deep or artful from an action movie series, and just have some fun. Everyone seems to act too grown up for that these days, though. We could watch a film that is "good" on paper, like Citizen Kane, and be bored to death, or we could go to the cinema to have some fun with a film that, on paper, is "bad" (i.e. Die Another Day).

    I see where you are coming from but being fans, we expect something different and more than the general audience. And this being a discussion forum for Bond fans you can bet that every scene will be dissected within an inch of its life.

    The good thing is that Bond films are so varied so every film will have some fans


  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote: »
    To be honest I've always found Blofeld rather overrated. In film he has never delivered on the promise of FRWL and TB and in print he has one good scene in TB, a couple of average ones in OHMSS and then one good one in YOLT.

    Certainly Dr No, Goldfinger and Scaramanga blow any of his cinematic iterations out of the water and Drax, Dr No and Goldfinger do the same in the books.

    All he's really got on his CV of any substance is killing Tracy.

    Wot? The "Merry Christmas, 007" scene and the "So poetic a pleasure" scene surely rank high.

    Yes these are certainly his highlight on film. I never said he was poor in OHMSS the film just that he never delivered on the menacing figure we saw in FRWL and TB.

    Because I'm such an affable chap I've helpfully bolded the key words below to try and assist you in differentiating between the two different media which you missed first time round:
    To be honest I've always found Blofeld rather overrated. In film he has never delivered on the promise of FRWL and TB and in print he has one good scene in TB, a couple of average ones in OHMSS and then one good one in YOLT.

    Certainly Dr No, Goldfinger and Scaramanga blow any of his cinematic iterations out of the water and Drax, Dr No and Goldfinger do the same in the books.

    All he's really got on his CV of any substance is killing Tracy.



  • But no Blofeld could have delivered on that promise. What everyone had in their own imaginations is different and more powerful than anything that can be shown on screen.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    But no Blofeld could have delivered on that promise. What everyone had in their own imaginations is different and more powerful than anything that can be shown on screen.

    and that is why they should have never revealed him.... I still don't really know what distinguishes Blofeld from any other larger than life villain in the franchise. If you renamed Blofeld in YOLT or OHMSS it would even be better since there would not be such a big continuity problem. It is just not possible that the Blofeld in YOLT is the same Blofeld in OHMSS (not even taking the DAF Blofeld into account). And if you regard the films as standalone adventures then you just don't need a returning character such as Blofeld.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The Bond films are art, however. I honestly don't know how a fan could dismiss them as not being art.

    The music of Barry, the sets of Ken Adam, the amazing done-for-real stunts, the various designs of the opening gun barrel, unique opening title designs, the suits Bond and his colleagues and enemies wear, the time capsule nature of the films that capture culture and customs to freeze time for those who forgot or missed those days.

    The Bond movies are a visual and auditory treat in every way, and EON and their teams throughout the years have indeed been quite artful in creating each of them as part of one gigantic, epic franchise. Because the Bond series is so on its own amongst the rest of the herd in cinema makes, it makes them even more like art. Not even the likes of Star Wars has retained such a sense of relevancy as Bond or kept to such a fundamental formula beyond maybe the opening crawl that begins each movie. In the Bond franchise we have tropes and boxes to tick that only exist for these films, items you expect to see in every Bond movie that've been formed in our minds over time, and those ideas of how to make a great spy film have influenced everyone else in the business since Dr. No arrived in 1962. Like all great art, Bond aspired to be in a league of its own and now inspires every other franchise that follows in his footsteps.

    When you comprehend the massive range of special talents that have lent themselves to every aspect of these films behind and before the camera since 1962, aiding in its ever-lasting appeal, I don't know how you don't immediately think of these films as the highest forms of art in our popular culture.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    Here here Brady. Well argued, and I totally agree.

    Just sit back now and wait for the inevitable 'OK, explain how DAD is art' post.

    You are right though, taking this franchise as a whole it's hard to argue that it isn't an artistic triumph.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    Sorry to walk so obviously into your trap @NicNac but 'How is DAD art?'

    art
    ɑːt/
    noun
    1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

    Does the above apply to DAD? There again it does have emotional power in that it stirs up feeling of rage and loathing so perhaps you are right?
Sign In or Register to comment.