Things you never want to see in a Bond film again

191012141529

Comments

  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    AVB wrote: »
    I'd counter all beer is rubbish so where are we? It's product placement, nothing else. Yes, I really miss these cultured moments where Bond is portrayed as a connoisseur, but it doesn't bother me any more than Bond not smoking anymore. It would really mean something to fans if he orders a specific wine or critiques so and so, but ultimately I don't mind as long as the rest of the film is up to par.

    CR probably has the closest of these moments ("skewered. one sympathizes"). I think Craig Bond's snobbery is pretty well articulated without the need to go this further step, but I wouldn't mind if it was there. People must just have some aversion to Heineken.

    Bond wouldn't drink it, end of story. There is nothing else to be said about it. Smoking is totally different, it's not considered classy at all anymore and for good reason. Smoking was in vogue during the 20's-70's.

    If you are blase about specific character traits then it never ends and you lose touch with the original copy, and then Bond might as well be anybody or anything. Fleming gave Bond very specific characteristics and quirks for very specific reasons. It won't matter to the casual moviegoer but to some of us it does.

    I don't remember Fleming gifting Bond with an aversion to Heineken. It would be different if he started drinking tea (something explicitly mentioned as being "muddy water" in the books). I've also never seen Bond make scrambled eggs in the films, etc. If you're going to invoke Fleming here then most of the series is automatically out in terms of what "Bond would and wouldn't do".

    Smoking is even more so part of the character than drinking a specific brand of beer. Bond was out of touch and didn't care about anything so he resorted to a lesser label or whatever. I imagine Bond as a heavy smoker and lament this loss more than this whole brouhaha over Heineken. But I'm not going to rate the last 7 films a 1/10 only because he doesn't smoke. It's nitpicking.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'd prefer if he smoked. I don't care about him drinking Heineken (it's a good beer), except for the fact that I know it's a blatant product placement and so it annoys me. Same with Omega (great watch but it's product placement). Same with Aston.

    However, they keep the production costs down so we have to live with it. Smoking may kill some box office (people are so judgemental these days).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    SaintMark wrote: »
    product placement pays the bills, I do not really care. As for beer drinking what is the big deal, in some places Bond should operate cocktails are hard to come by, while beer isn't all that difficult to get anywhere.

    But 24 million budget for a poor car chase is something I would not mind seeing ever again. Spend the money on something exciting otherwise the franchise will bleed slowly to dead.

    But didn't Sam and Dan nix Bond using Sony's phone because it wasn't the absolute best and Bond uses the best?

    Well how does Heineken fit into this ethos?
  • Posts: 7,653

    Well how does Heineken fit into this ethos?

    They paid the best!!

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,270
    I've also never seen Bond make scrambled eggs in the films, etc. If you're going to invoke Fleming here then most of the series is automatically out in terms of what "Bond would and wouldn't do".

    Madeleine: James, do you want your eggs scrambled or over-easy?

    Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?

    Madeleine: You are so grumpy since you quit. And why does Eve Moneypenny keep calling every time we take the Aston for a spin? I've had enough. I'm splitting.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    echo wrote: »
    I've also never seen Bond make scrambled eggs in the films, etc. If you're going to invoke Fleming here then most of the series is automatically out in terms of what "Bond would and wouldn't do".

    Madeleine: James, do you want your eggs scrambled or over-easy?

    Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?

    Madeleine: You are so grumpy since you quit. And why does Eve Moneypenny keep calling every time we take the Aston for a spin? I've had enough. I'm splitting.

    =))

    We have the PTS for Property of a Lady AKA Bond 25! Bond then spends the rest of the movie tracking down the DB5, which Madeleine steals out from under Bond's nose. More antics from "Team Bond". Along the way, Bond tries to get intel from Blofeld as to where Madeleine might be going, ala Silence of the Lambs. Movie ends with Bond resignedly realizing that he doesn't need the DB5 anymore, lets Madeleine go, cue more navel gazing, cue end credits.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,104
    The Heineken thing bothers me because it is an inferior brand. Bond is supposed to know the difference between quality and non quality, it's part of his character.

    What makes Bond so different from all other action heroes is his snobbery, his taste for the finer things in life.

    Anyway, being a fan of the novels I just hated how he was portrayed in that scene. Something in the line of: "If Bond wasn't on duty, he couldn't care less about quality. He'd watch reality shows, drink beer and eat cheeseburgers."

    Nevertheless, and I did point that out, I loved Skyfall and I won't rate it 1/10 just because of a two-minute scene, but it won't get a 10/10 either.

    I'd still give it 8 or 9.
  • I don't want to see Bond and the MI6 gang in the field together ,not for another couple of films at least ,if they over do that aspect they'll end up straying into Mission Impossible's territory .
  • Posts: 486
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'd prefer if he smoked. I don't care about him drinking Heineken (it's a good beer), except for the fact that I know it's a blatant product placement and so it annoys me. Same with Omega (great watch but it's product placement). Same with Aston.

    However, they keep the production costs down so we have to live with it. Smoking may kill some box office (people are so judgemental these days).

    Nothing takes the biscuit greater than SF and "Volkswagen Beetles...I think" and then insult added to injury with the very next shot being a close up of Bond's watch...still I guess you could say at least they got it out of the way early on.
  • Posts: 1,181
    Things I don't want to see.
    1. Bond going rogue. Sure, Bond can bend the rules, but this angle has been overused.
    2. Bond threatening he's never coming back. He's coming back already.
    3. Needles drilling into someone's head. This was purely a hokey shockfactor with no real payoff.
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.
    5. Leading Bond Girls that are Doctors. Good grief we get it. Women are smart creatures too.
  • Posts: 12,526
    More than a 3 year gap between movies!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Judy Dench
  • TigerTanakaTigerTanaka Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond
    Posts: 50
    (Not sure if it's been mentioned--haven't checked) For me, a recurring comic relief like Sherrif Pepper and Victor the wine drinking man.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Viktor Tourjansky is a legend!
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I may have been mentioned this before, but characters from non-anglophone countries talking to each other in accented English. Russians don't speak English with Russian accents to each other, ditto with Chinese and French. It totally ruins the realism of the scene, all for the silly conceit that English speakers can't deal with subtitles even for a minute. The Soviet politburo conference in OP would have felt much more real, and speaking Russian in TSWLM would at least have disguised the fact that Barbara Bach couldn't act or even fake a Russian accent.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116

    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The Heineken thing bothers me because it is an inferior brand. Bond is supposed to know the difference between quality and non quality, it's part of his character.

    What makes Bond so different from all other action heroes is his snobbery, his taste for the finer things in life.

    Anyway, being a fan of the novels I just hated how he was portrayed in that scene. Something in the line of: "If Bond wasn't on duty, he couldn't care less about quality. He'd watch reality shows, drink beer and eat cheeseburgers."

    Nevertheless, and I did point that out, I loved Skyfall and I won't rate it 1/10 just because of a two-minute scene, but it won't get a 10/10 either.

    I'd still give it 8 or 9.

    Yeah be better if just Tanner drank it ...that annoys me too. Kudos to Mendes and Craig to standing up to at least one product placement.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Heineken has been a sponsor since LTK, but were never given so much prominence as in SF. Daniel hated that scene, but the tings you do for money...
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited January 2016 Posts: 1,729
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Things I don't want to see.
    1. Bond going rogue. Sure, Bond can bend the rules, but this angle has been overused.
    2. Bond threatening he's never coming back. He's coming back already.
    3. Needles drilling into someone's head. This was purely a hokey shockfactor with no real payoff.
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.
    5. Leading Bond Girls that are Doctors. Good grief we get it. Women are smart creatures too.

    Good list, I concur.

    And no more tie-pins, this isn't a Givenchy ad.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.

    This is simply mirroring the current political climate, hence why it plays a more significant role in SF/SP. We're in a completely different world to that of Bond's gone by, where questions over surveillance and security were not front and centre. The need for transparency creates a very different set of circumstances. When Fleming created Bond the idea that our own services could intentionally/unintentionally compromise our safety wasn't something to be concerned about. Things are so much more opaque these days. For that reason I don't have a problem with a threat to the future of the 00 program (which is essentially what we're talking about).
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,729
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.

    This is simply mirroring the current political climate, hence why it plays a more significant role in SF/SP. We're in a completely different world to that of Bond's gone by, where questions over surveillance and security were not front and centre. The need for transparency creates a very different set of circumstances. When Fleming created Bond the idea that our own services could intentionally/unintentionally compromise our safety wasn't something to be concerned about. Things are so much more opaque these days. For that reason I don't have a problem with a threat to the future of the 00 program (which is essentially what we're talking about).

    Great that it doesn't bother you - I for one am tired of this being used a plot-device twice in a row now. It smacks of lazy writing.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    echo wrote: »
    I've also never seen Bond make scrambled eggs in the films, etc. If you're going to invoke Fleming here then most of the series is automatically out in terms of what "Bond would and wouldn't do".

    Madeleine: James, do you want your eggs scrambled or over-easy?

    Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?

    Madeleine: You are so grumpy since you quit. And why does Eve Moneypenny keep calling every time we take the Aston for a spin? I've had enough. I'm splitting.

    =))

    We have the PTS for Property of a Lady AKA Bond 25! Bond then spends the rest of the movie tracking down the DB5, which Madeleine steals out from under Bond's nose. More antics from "Team Bond". Along the way, Bond tries to get intel from Blofeld as to where Madeleine might be going, ala Silence of the Lambs. Movie ends with Bond resignedly realizing that he doesn't need the DB5 anymore, lets Madeleine go, cue more navel gazing, cue end credits.

    :)) :) =)) Hilarious. Made my day!

    Bond wearing strange moustaches.
    Daniel-Craig.jpg

    Bond wearing strange costumes.
    Sean_Connery.jpg.jpg?1406724353
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    AceHole wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.

    This is simply mirroring the current political climate, hence why it plays a more significant role in SF/SP. We're in a completely different world to that of Bond's gone by, where questions over surveillance and security were not front and centre. The need for transparency creates a very different set of circumstances. When Fleming created Bond the idea that our own services could intentionally/unintentionally compromise our safety wasn't something to be concerned about. Things are so much more opaque these days. For that reason I don't have a problem with a threat to the future of the 00 program (which is essentially what we're talking about).

    Great that it doesn't bother you - I for one am tired of this being used a plot-device twice in a row now. It smacks of lazy writing.

    The films are linked and it's still a current concern, so I don't see why it wouldn't be addressed in SP. It bolsters the position that the 00 program is, while small, a conversely powerful and unique entity. In the overarching narrative it makes little sense to say, 'Ok guys, we're all good now. M's poetry did the trick'. It wasn't resolved in SF, so to me it makes sense that it would be reprised in SP. It's not lazy at all.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,729
    RC7 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.

    This is simply mirroring the current political climate, hence why it plays a more significant role in SF/SP. We're in a completely different world to that of Bond's gone by, where questions over surveillance and security were not front and centre. The need for transparency creates a very different set of circumstances. When Fleming created Bond the idea that our own services could intentionally/unintentionally compromise our safety wasn't something to be concerned about. Things are so much more opaque these days. For that reason I don't have a problem with a threat to the future of the 00 program (which is essentially what we're talking about).

    Great that it doesn't bother you - I for one am tired of this being used a plot-device twice in a row now. It smacks of lazy writing.

    The films are linked and it's still a current concern, so I don't see why it wouldn't be addressed in SP. It bolsters the position that the 00 program is, while small, a conversely powerful and unique entity. In the overarching narrative it makes little sense to say, 'Ok guys, we're all good now. M's poetry did the trick'. It wasn't resolved in SF, so to me it makes sense that it would be reprised in SP. It's not lazy at all.

    Your positivism on the issue is admirable, but I still don't agree that it was necessary to expand the 'Is MI6 still a good use of the UK's resources?' story device quite so heavily into the next film (ie. SP). To me it just felt like a massive re-tread.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    AceHole wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4. MI6 getting shutdown. This angle has been well played out.

    This is simply mirroring the current political climate, hence why it plays a more significant role in SF/SP. We're in a completely different world to that of Bond's gone by, where questions over surveillance and security were not front and centre. The need for transparency creates a very different set of circumstances. When Fleming created Bond the idea that our own services could intentionally/unintentionally compromise our safety wasn't something to be concerned about. Things are so much more opaque these days. For that reason I don't have a problem with a threat to the future of the 00 program (which is essentially what we're talking about).

    Great that it doesn't bother you - I for one am tired of this being used a plot-device twice in a row now. It smacks of lazy writing.

    The films are linked and it's still a current concern, so I don't see why it wouldn't be addressed in SP. It bolsters the position that the 00 program is, while small, a conversely powerful and unique entity. In the overarching narrative it makes little sense to say, 'Ok guys, we're all good now. M's poetry did the trick'. It wasn't resolved in SF, so to me it makes sense that it would be reprised in SP. It's not lazy at all.

    Your positivism on the issue is admirable, but I still don't agree that it was necessary to expand the 'Is MI6 still a good use of the UK's resources?' story device quite so heavily into the next film (ie. SP). To me it just felt like a massive re-tread.

    Perhaps it was because I was expecting it that I don't find particularly off-putting. When Mendes suggested there were threads of ideas he wanted to explore further, it was pretty obvious to me that this would be one. In SF, it is Bond himself who provides a symbolic resolution for the audience, but the repercussions of M's actions and the subsequent court hearing are never resolved in the world of the film. The fact SP does that job and works Spectre (as organisation) into the narrative makes sense to me.
  • Let's not forget the king of them all, @DoctorKaufmann:

    11ea54dfde8355c47f28bb27f637fa7c.jpg
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I fail to see how shuttering MI6 is something taken from the "current political climate". The notion that a major power would close its human intelligence is absolutely absurd and does not have any bearing on the real world. The lack of human intelligence is one of the biggest failings in the fight against ISIS, North Korea, et al. SKyfall was more realistic with the idea that politicians might demand more accountability and transparency, but the plot of SP was ripped from Mendes' mind, not from the headlines.
  • Posts: 1,009
    Let's see... That lady eating bananas on OHMSS. I can't help but see unfortunate implications there. And not of phallic nature...
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited January 2016 Posts: 1,729
    Let's see... That lady eating bananas on OHMSS. I can't help but see unfortunate implications there. And not of phallic nature...

    What?! The whole assortment of innuendo around that Piz Gloria dinner scene is Bond-comedy gold! :>
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Sark wrote: »
    I fail to see how shuttering MI6 is something taken from the "current political climate". The notion that a major power would close its human intelligence is absolutely absurd and does not have any bearing on the real world. The lack of human intelligence is one of the biggest failings in the fight against ISIS, North Korea, et al. SKyfall was more realistic with the idea that politicians might demand more accountability and transparency, but the plot of SP was ripped from Mendes' mind, not from the headlines.

    I was reading between the lines of his initial comment regard the angle being 'played out' as meaning the spotlight being on the 00 program. They weren't closing MI6. It's the idea of recruitment shifting from field work to office based intelligence gathering that it mirrors.
  • Let's see... That lady eating bananas on OHMSS. I can't help but see unfortunate implications there. And not of phallic nature...

    So no black person is allowed to eat a banana in a bond film because... .you feel black people are associated with chimps?

    Please tell me who are the racists?

Sign In or Register to comment.