When bond forgets to be bond...

fire_and_ice

What scenes in the bond movie's do you feel the film has gone off on a tangent and forgotten its bond movie momentarily.

Just watching FYEO the scene with bond and the countess from manchester at her apartment, for a short period felt like i was watching crossroads (crossroads was a cheap badly acted english soap set in a motel). Its a terrible scene, was quite relieved when the countess death scene kicked in on the beach and reminded me i was watching bond.

007RogerMoore

There are many, but my favorite to name is the hospital sequence in CR.

fire_and_ice

007RogerMoore said:
There are many, but my favorite to name is the hospital sequence in CR.

Never liked the airport scene in CR the action was ok though did not feel like bond to me and never felt the sequence sat well with the rest of the movie.

007RogerMoore

fire_and_ice said:

007RogerMoore said:
There are many, but my favorite to name is the hospital sequence in CR.

Never liked the airport scene in CR the action was ok though did not feel like bond to me and never felt the sequence sat well with the rest of the movie.

The airport scene is also a perfect example of this. IMO, most of CR is guilty of forgetting its roots.

DarthDimi

I object. CR tries to retract its roots, all the way to the literary source as a matter of fact.

Agent007391

007RogerMoore said:

fire_and_ice said:

007RogerMoore said:
There are many, but my favorite to name is the hospital sequence in CR.

Never liked the airport scene in CR the action was ok though did not feel like bond to me and never felt the sequence sat well with the rest of the movie.

The airport scene is also a perfect example of this. IMO, most of CR is guilty of forgetting its roots.

Not forgetting. CR was ignoring most of its roots, because Bond can't just start at MI6 and be the man we knew for 20 films prior.

DarthDimi said:
I object. CR tries to retract its roots, all the way to the literary source as a matter of fact.

Plus, Dimi's right. The movie is faithful to its source material.

007RogerMoore

DarthDimi said:
I object. CR tries to retract its roots, all the way to the literary source as a matter of fact.

I trust you when it comes to that. I explained myself wrong. It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films, while retracting its original roots.

Agent007391

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

thelivingroyale

QOS, when Bond is chasing Mitchell.

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.

Agent007391

thelivingroyale said:
QOS, when Bond is chasing Mitchell.

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.

Yes, Q and Moneypenny should have been in the film, but we can look at it this way: the Q Branch hadn't been established yet and Moneypenny hadn't been hired. It's not the official explanation, but at least it is one.

Shardlake

Why should they introduce them? Just goes to show people just want the tick the box element to persuade them they are watching a Bond film. I blame it on the Moore era yes it started with Connery but Sir Rog's era ran with it to the point of over saturation.

When Bond isn't being Bond and just being a cover version, now let me think...

1995-2002

007RogerMoore

thelivingroyale said:
QOS, when Bond is chasing Mitchell.

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.

I really think this whole reboot idea was a mistake. I'm glad that it's over now. I think that Q, Moneypenny and the gunbarrel (in the beginning) must be part of every Bond film (shame on you also, LALD).

fire_and_ice

Pretty much every scene bond has with Electra, i don't believe bond would be so easily taken in by her. Every time i hear the line 'There is no point in living, if you can't feel alive' i cringe.

007RogerMoore

fire_and_ice said:
Pretty much every scene bond has with Electra, i don't believe bond would be so easily taken in by her. Every time i hear the line 'There is no point in living, if you can't feel alive' i cringe.

I agree about this and all the drama in TWINE. Another mistake. IMO they should have made TND 2 instead of the TWINE we know today.

Shardlake

Blame it on DAD, seriously the series needed a restart after that travesty, in fact the whole Brosnan era turned it into a joke.

Once again must have all the elements to convince me it's Bond, I just think for these people it's just about cliches and if they haven't got them they can't recognise it as Bond. CR was the first time in decades that Bond was a proper fully realised character not some device to get from A to B.

DarthDimi

Shardlake said:
Why should they introduce them? Just goes to show people just want the tick the box element to persuade them they are watching a Bond film. I blame it on the Moore era yes it started with Connery but Sir Rog's era ran with it to the point of over saturation.

When Bond isn't being Bond and just being a cover version, now let me think...

1995-2002

Oh no, I fully disagree there. The GE Bond, for me, is the previously established Bond, only slightly modernized. The screenplays went sour after GE, IMO at least, but I have no objection to the Bond(s), including the DAD Bond.

007RogerMoore said:
I really think this whole reboot idea was a mistake. I'm glad that it's over now. I think that Q, Moneypenny and the gunbarrel (in the beginning) must be part of every Bond film (shame on you also, LALD).

I disagree. The reboot, firstly, can be argued as not being a reboot, but let's not get into semantics. ;-) Anyway, this reboot certainly refreshed the series in place where it was needed after DAD. Audiences liked it. The fact that this film maintains a strong rating on many list, for example imdb where it scores best of all the Bonds, demonstrates this. Furthermore, I love Q, MP and the GB as well but I will say this: I'd rather have no Q or MP than a poor Q/MP. With Q we dived into virtual reality in DAD and MP was dropped in there as well. That's what I call a poor Q/MP. Not having them, keeps us longing for their return, which is a positive emotion. Having them abused, is the opposite. We don't want that. So, if they return, I prefer it under the condition that they get a few good moments. Bringing them back just for the sake of it, is not good enough IMO.

As for the GB, I love the way it was set up in CR. QoS however, indeed made a huge mistake I think by not opening up with the GB.

Shardlake

If they'd stuck Q & MP in CR it would have been fake just crow barring them in for the fans who can't accept the cliches had to end and we needed a new start. I was all for the reboot and I've been a fan since 1977.

007RogerMoore

The gunbarrel idea in CR was good IMO, even though I would have preferred a normal GB. This works since it was Bond's first kill. But teasing us with the GB at the end of QOS was a mistake IMO, even though it might be intended to tell us that the Vesper story is done with.

Agent007391

007RogerMoore said:

thelivingroyale said:
QOS, when Bond is chasing Mitchell.

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.

I really think this whole reboot idea was a mistake. I'm glad that it's over now. I think that Q, Moneypenny and the gunbarrel (in the beginning) must be part of every Bond film (shame on you also, LALD).

Whenever anything gets too much continuity, it needs to stop, take steps back and then proceed forward again. I enjoy reboots because I want to see how things could have ended up differently. No timeline is "dead" to me. They could, at any time (they will never do so), choose to pick another actor and switch back to the 62-02 Bond a few years down the road.

thelivingroyale

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:

thelivingroyale said:
QOS, when Bond is chasing Mitchell.

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.

I really think this whole reboot idea was a mistake. I'm glad that it's over now. I think that Q, Moneypenny and the gunbarrel (in the beginning) must be part of every Bond film (shame on you also, LALD).

Whenever anything gets too much continuity, it needs to stop, take steps back and then proceed forward again. I enjoy reboots because I want to see how things could have ended up differently. No timeline is "dead" to me. They could, at any time (they will never do so), choose to pick another actor and switch back to the 62-02 Bond a few years down the road.

The trouble is with reboots now, is that they're overused. Thanks to the success of films like CR and Batman Begins, hollywood has fallen in love with reboots. Everything is getting rebooted these days. Robin Hood, Superman, Spiderman, Batman again, Pink Panther, Star Trek, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Tomb Raider, Daredevil, and worst of all, now the Ninja Turtles are being rebooted as god damn aliens!!! (which reminds me, f*ck you Micheal Bay, stop ruining my childhood!!!)

Volante

thelivingroyale said:

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:

thelivingroyale said:
QOS, when Bond is chasing Mitchell.

Agent007391 said:

007RogerMoore said:
It forgets (or ignores) the 20 preceding films

And this was the film's purpose. Some people seem to forget this.

Some people just don't like it. I don't mind the reboot myself, but I think they should've introduced Q and Moneypenny in CR, even if Q is just giving Bond his gun to keep the realism.

I really think this whole reboot idea was a mistake. I'm glad that it's over now. I think that Q, Moneypenny and the gunbarrel (in the beginning) must be part of every Bond film (shame on you also, LALD).

Whenever anything gets too much continuity, it needs to stop, take steps back and then proceed forward again. I enjoy reboots because I want to see how things could have ended up differently. No timeline is "dead" to me. They could, at any time (they will never do so), choose to pick another actor and switch back to the 62-02 Bond a few years down the road.

The trouble is with reboots now, is that they're overused. Thanks to the success of films like CR and Batman Begins, hollywood has fallen in love with reboots. Everything is getting rebooted these days. Robin Hood, Superman, Spiderman, Batman again, Pink Panther, Star Trek, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Tomb Raider, Daredevil, and worst of all, now the Ninja Turtles are being rebooted as god damn aliens!!! (which reminds me, f*ck you Micheal Bay, stop ruining my childhood!!!)

Don't forget 'Get Smart', as much as I'd like to. Star Trek was quite good though.

Personally I don't mind the reboot, CR and QOS have set up Bond's 'rebirth' and for me it feels like the series can continue with a kind of fresh start instead of constantly having to refer to past films.

bondbat007

DarthDimi said:
I object. CR tries to retract its roots, all the way to the literary source as a matter of fact.

Agreed 100%

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

THE ENTIRE MOORE ERA!

X3MSonicX

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:
THE ENTIRE MOORE ERA!

Could you argument why?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

X3MSonicX said:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:
THE ENTIRE MOORE ERA!

Could you argument why?

I need to still, after all this time?

He is the very opposite of Bond. Unconvincing, camp, and all his films are walking jokes, like a comedy show. All the essence of a serious James Bond as Fleming wrote are gone, replaced with eyebrow raises, ridiculous stupid moments that Bond would never do (TMWTGG school girls scene), and I have the hardest time trying to sit through the garbage because it all feels like a sin against Sean's work in his first 4 and Fleming himself. Roger's Bond is the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the trashing of a beloved fictional character. I like my Bond serious, cold, calculating, and ruthless like it is intended for the character, and Moore shats on that in his films. I will always watch his films the least and Sean's and Dan's the most, that much is certain. I just don't feel like having to go to a confession and let my sins be known every time I watch a Moore Bond film, and I am not a religious man at all.

X3MSonicX

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

I need to still, after all this time?

He is the very opposite of Bond. Unconvincing, camp, and all his films are walking jokes, like a comedy show. All the essence of a serious James Bond as Fleming wrote are gone, replaced with eyebrow raises, ridiculous stupid moments that Bond would never do (TMWTGG school girls scene), and I have the hardest time trying to sit through the garbage because it all feels like a sin against Sean's work in his first 4 and Fleming himself. Roger's Bond is the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the trashing of a beloved fictional character. I like my Bond serious, cold, calculating, and ruthless like it is intended for the character, and Moore shats on that in his films. I will always watch his films the least and Sean's and Dan's the most, that much is certain. I just don't feel like having to go to a confession and let my sins be known every time I watch a Moore Bond film, and I am not a religious man at all.

Well, firstly i never noticed you were a Moore hater. But also good to see you like Craig.

Kerim

1997-2002.

JWESTBROOK

Kerim said:
1997-2002.

And briefly back in 1979 ;)

Baltimore_007

Why has no-one mentioned 'when Bond gets amnesia'

Shardlake

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

X3MSonicX said:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:
THE ENTIRE MOORE ERA!

Could you argument why?

I need to still, after all this time?

He is the very opposite of Bond. Unconvincing, camp, and all his films are walking jokes, like a comedy show. All the essence of a serious James Bond as Fleming wrote are gone, replaced with eyebrow raises, ridiculous stupid moments that Bond would never do (TMWTGG school girls scene), and I have the hardest time trying to sit through the garbage because it all feels like a sin against Sean's work in his first 4 and Fleming himself. Roger's Bond is the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the trashing of a beloved fictional character. I like my Bond serious, cold, calculating, and ruthless like it is intended for the character, and Moore shats on that in his films. I will always watch his films the least and Sean's and Dan's the most, that much is certain. I just don't feel like having to go to a confession and let my sins be known every time I watch a Moore Bond film, and I am not a religious man at all.

I completely agree and RM was my Bond, SWLM on the big screen in 1977 was my first Bond experience but as I've got older Moore's films are the ones that make me groan the most (I've tried to erase PB's).

Moore might well say he took the element from Fleming's idea that Bond was a man who didn't actually like killing but he makes so light of it in most of his films I don't believe him one bit, he played Bond like some millionaire playboy with no concern for public property and just looks like he's having a whale of a time so no he's nothing like the literary Bond and is responsible for the whole cheesy interpretation that Joe public find it so hard to separate the character

thelivingroyale

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

X3MSonicX said:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:
THE ENTIRE MOORE ERA!

Could you argument why?

I need to still, after all this time?

He is the very opposite of Bond. Unconvincing, camp, and all his films are walking jokes, like a comedy show. All the essence of a serious James Bond as Fleming wrote are gone, replaced with eyebrow raises, ridiculous stupid moments that Bond would never do (TMWTGG school girls scene), and I have the hardest time trying to sit through the garbage because it all feels like a sin against Sean's work in his first 4 and Fleming himself. Roger's Bond is the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the trashing of a beloved fictional character. I like my Bond serious, cold, calculating, and ruthless like it is intended for the character, and Moore shats on that in his films. I will always watch his films the least and Sean's and Dan's the most, that much is certain. I just don't feel like having to go to a confession and let my sins be known every time I watch a Moore Bond film, and I am not a religious man at all.

But if you like Moore or not, he was the best they had at the time (Dalton was too young, Connery was too fat, Lasenby has quit), and his films did well and kept the series going. I like Moore's Bond. He did something different. If all the Bonds were serious, cold and ruthless, it would get boring. I think it's good that there's different versions of Bond, because that keeps the series going for a long time.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements