The unfair criticism

13

Comments

  • Posts: 14,799
    Saying that the water plot is stupid or boring or whatever is still unfair criticism regardless of what you think of its execution. Same with Sanchez' schemes in LTK which take a backseat and are barely developed. They are necessary to have the villain be more than a glorified target. And in both cases however underdeveloped they are still good ideas.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Saying that the water plot is stupid or boring or whatever is still unfair criticism regardless of what you think of its execution. Same with Sanchez' schemes in LTK which take a backseat and are barely developed. They are necessary to have the villain be more than a glorified target. And in both cases however underdeveloped they are still good ideas.

    Saying it's stupid is wrong, fair enough, but I can see why someone would find it boring. It's quite a distinctive angle and requires some fleshing out to add a bit of meat to the bone. As it is, it doesn't really go anywhere. It's a bit of a damp squib. There's no tangibility to Bond thwarting the scheme. Sanchez's schemes are inherently generic and for that reason can blend into the background, but they are still serviced correctly. We see Bond fuck him over. In QoS it's all too subtle to the point of disinterest.
  • Posts: 14,799
    I didn't find it boring. Frustrating at times yes but not boring.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Thinking of QOS, the people criticizing Dominic Greene's introduction were unfair as well. Sure, it was not Dr No's, but Goldfinger, Kristatos and Koskov all had fairly mundane introductions. Koskov's was more exciting, but he himself didn't make an exciting entrance as a villain.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Saying that the water plot is stupid or boring or whatever is still unfair criticism regardless of what you think of its execution. Same with Sanchez' schemes in LTK which take a backseat and are barely developed. They are necessary to have the villain be more than a glorified target. And in both cases however underdeveloped they are still good ideas.

    With the oil/water storyline (and Greene Planet), QoS is the Bond approach to an environmental statement...as well as a pointed commentary on the U.S.'s involvement in Latin American affairs. I think it is one of the more realistic villainous activities in the series.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    TripAces wrote: »
    I think it is one of the more realistic villainous activities in the series.

    Absolutely. Actually, a little more OTT-ness would have been cool.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I agree, I don't think many of us got into Bond from its realistic villains/plots. Regardless of whether we like it now, it was the hollowed out volcanoes, man with the cat/hat/gun, world domination plots that got us captivated
  • Posts: 14,799
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    I think it is one of the more realistic villainous activities in the series.

    Absolutely. Actually, a little more OTT-ness would have been cool.

    It is still large scale and thus there is an element of OTT in it.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    I think it is one of the more realistic villainous activities in the series.

    Absolutely. Actually, a little more OTT-ness would have been cool.

    It is still large scale and thus there is an element of OTT in it.

    I don't remember quite as much document signing in the earlier entries :p
  • Posts: 14,799
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    I think it is one of the more realistic villainous activities in the series.

    Absolutely. Actually, a little more OTT-ness would have been cool.

    It is still large scale and thus there is an element of OTT in it.

    I don't remember quite as much document signing in the earlier entries :p

    They should have focused more on the constructions of the tank, I'll give you that.
  • Posts: 14,799
    Well, the movie has not been released yet, but I remember one bit of criticism from one reviewer regarding the teaser of SP: the presence of Mr White. Because, he said, White was associated with QOS, an unpopular Bond movie. All personal appreciations of QOS aside, White was far more prominent in CR, one of the most acclaimed Bond movies of the history of the franchise!
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    The criticism over Daniel Craig's looks and especially hair, even after CR came out and showed that he and the film showed the best Bond in frickin' DECADES (okay, sure, my opinion).

    And by the way, it was understandable that everybody was expecting a lot from QoS, since CR was so great, but I think the criticism has gone overboard. I saw it when I came out and really, really liked it. Still do. The only real thing I wasn't happy with was the theme song.

    The "slooooooow" underwater scenes from Thunderball has been talked about a lot, but I've never had one problem with them.
  • Posts: 232
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Thinking of QOS, the people criticizing Dominic Greene's introduction were unfair as well. Sure, it was not Dr No's, but Goldfinger, Kristatos and Koskov all had fairly mundane introductions. Koskov's was more exciting, but he himself didn't make an exciting entrance as a villain.

    There's a difference here in most of these instances, as we're not supposed to know Kristatos and Koskov ARE villains yet, whereas there is no such gray area with Greene. In fact, I found Kristatos' intro to be subtle but also revealing, because he and Bond disagree on wines (his choice is too scented for Bond's palate as I recall), which was a small but memorable pointer that he WAS going to be the baddie.

    Greene's intro, and the way the movie just grinds to a stop as bond putters around on his bike, is a really strangely messed up series of minutes in the movie, and the hysterically overcut boat chase following doesn't help anything at all.

    QUANTUM is the only Bond movie I have enjoyed to any degree since Dalton's days, but that doesn't excuse its many failings, and no, I'm not trying to go on my usual anti-Craig rant here (that's a given.) But it has a point of view and a sense of style, even if both are blunted by the silly cutting.


  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    The criticsm over the Pierce Brosnan era Except Goldeneye.

    Ok his films are not as deep as the ones we have right now with Daniel Craig and the yes the scripts needed some improvment but the films were really fun and enjoyable with great action sequences each one of them.

    They were action movies and they were films made for their times, no one expected that Nolan GreenGrass would come to the picture and change everyone's taste in a blink of an eye.

    Pierce's 4 films were really succesful at their time but no one could predict that they would feel outdated in less than 3 years.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 538
    "Roger Moore in a clownsuit in Octopussy is unacceptable and unrealistic"

    But you're okay with Pierce Brosnan destroying a city with a tank.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    "Roger Moore in a clownsuit in Octopussy is unacceptable and unrealistic"
    But you're okay with Pierce Brosnan destroying a city with a tank.
    I'm okay with both.

  • Posts: 232
    Szonana wrote: »
    em.
    They were action movies and they were films made for their times, no one expected that Nolan GreenGrass would come to the picture and change everyone's taste in a blink of an eye .

    I just got a wave of nausea from seeing Nolan's name mentioned in the same sentence as Greengrass, who may have done more to set back cinematic filmmaking than JJ Abrams with that EpilepsyCam. I don't think there's any way I could possibly sit through a whole Greengrass movie, not unless I went blind.




  • Posts: 232
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    "Roger Moore in a clownsuit in Octopussy is unacceptable and unrealistic"

    But you're okay with Pierce Brosnan destroying a city with a tank.

    The clownsuit is fine, it works in ironic counterpoint and there's almost something like suspense at the end, plus it always reminds me of better times in movie theaters, like the part in THE WILD GEESE when Richard Burton calls Moore a clown.

    But the gorilla suit HAS to go!

  • edited August 2015 Posts: 232
    w2bond wrote: »
    I agree, I don't think many of us got into Bond from its realistic villains/plots. Regardless of whether we like it now, it was the hollowed out volcanoes, man with the cat/hat/gun, world domination plots that got us captivated

    I saw GF in the theater before I turned 4, so I should have imprinted Bond as always being bigger than life. But by the time I was really looking at movies (as a teen), FRWL just nailed everything I loved about Bond (except Ken Adam, and in this case he simply wasn't missed), and I've never had cause to revise my view that FRWL is just IT (with TLD/LTK a ways back along with TB.)
  • I think that Brosnan's films share an unfair amount of criticism these days (except Goldeneye), I get that DAD was a disaster, but I found TND and TWINE to be fun and enjoyable, objectively yeah not the strongest entries in the series, but I love both and TWINE is in my top 10, above Craig's, Moore's and Dalton's films, but as I said, it's all subjective, people have their own opinions, I just like TWINE more than the other films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Cool.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    trevanian wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    em.
    They were action movies and they were films made for their times, no one expected that Nolan GreenGrass would come to the picture and change everyone's taste in a blink of an eye .

    I just got a wave of nausea from seeing Nolan's name mentioned in the same sentence as Greengrass, who may have done more to set back cinematic filmmaking than JJ Abrams with that EpilepsyCam. I don't think there's any way I could possibly sit through a whole Greengrass movie, not unless I went blind.


    You just made me feel terribly guilty, i didn't wnat to cause this feeling.
    Anyway what i meant is that Paul's Bourne Trilogy and Nolan's Batman begins changed the way people saw action movies a lot and caused the Brosnan era to be seen in a bad light.






  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    trevanian wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    em.
    They were action movies and they were films made for their times, no one expected that Nolan GreenGrass would come to the picture and change everyone's taste in a blink of an eye .

    I just got a wave of nausea from seeing Nolan's name mentioned in the same sentence as Greengrass, who may have done more to set back cinematic filmmaking than JJ Abrams with that EpilepsyCam. I don't think there's any way I could possibly sit through a whole Greengrass movie, not unless I went blind.


    Nolan Greengrass. Both in one sentence again >:)
    No honestly, there's no telling how much both directors did influence Hollywood productions after their 2004/2005 movies.
    In that context both names belong together.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    trevanian wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    em.
    They were action movies and they were films made for their times, no one expected that Nolan GreenGrass would come to the picture and change everyone's taste in a blink of an eye .

    I just got a wave of nausea from seeing Nolan's name mentioned in the same sentence as Greengrass, who may have done more to set back cinematic filmmaking than JJ Abrams with that EpilepsyCam. I don't think there's any way I could possibly sit through a whole Greengrass movie, not unless I went blind.





    Nolan Greengrass. Both in one sentence again >:)
    No honestly, there's no telling how much both directors did influence Hollywood productions after their 2004/2005 movies.
    In that context both names belong together.


    sorry i did it again.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Szonana wrote: »
    The criticsm over the Pierce Brosnan era Except Goldeneye.

    .

    I agree. Goldeneye must be included.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Szonana wrote: »
    The criticsm over the Pierce Brosnan era Except Goldeneye.

    .

    I agree. Goldeneye must be included.


    :))
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Szonana wrote: »
    The criticsm over the Pierce Brosnan era Except Goldeneye.

    .

    I agree. Goldeneye must be included.

    I excluded Goldeneye because that one is more respected with fans and critics, gets way less hate than the other 3.

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    GoldenEye is universally loved, except for Norway.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Goldeneye is a actually a good film. I think that's why it's universally loved.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    GoldenEye is universally loved, except for Norway.

    Why they don't like Goldeneye over there( Norway) ?

    Anyway Goldeneye is the only Brosnan flick which is the professional critics Top 10.
Sign In or Register to comment.