007: What would you have done differently?

1323335373856

Comments

  • Posts: 1,883
    As a longtime fan who was apparently one of the few not blown away by GE after the long 6-year gap, I have numerous things I'd change right from the very beginning.

    -Serra's gunbarrel theme is lacking and I don't like the stiffness of Brosnan, who stands almost straight up. Hope he's aiming at an NBA player or is accurate with a head shot.

    -After one of the greatest Bond stunts - the bungee jump - it ends on a stunt too far. Why not have Bond struggle with a pilot on the runway instead of the goofy flying in the plane freefall. I've seen some try and justify how it's possible but it just doesn't work.

    -Take out the bicyclers getting knocked over. It's a leftover from the Moore era.

    -I don't mind Serra's score so much now. It kind of works in the context and I can understand a fresh approach, but this was a case where a Barry-like sound would've worked better to reestablish the series.

    -The casino scene seems more ritual than interesting and some of Bros's line readings seem stiff here.

    -The main story seems to take forever to get going. And yet another piece of space hardware as part of the main threat.

    -It's interesting viewing the sexist, misogynist dinosaur comments and Moneypenny attitude now that MeToo is in the news. I would have preferred something similar to Gardner's Licence Renewed where M talks about the country needing a troubleshooter and will have one although the OO section is being abolished. This is almost like an apology.

    -I'm probably one of the few who don't care for Zukovsky. I don't buy this guy was a dangerous gangster with all this influence.

    -I've also never cared for the tank chase. It's like they needed to get Bond in a vehicle he hadn't previously been in and it feels like an outtake from The Blues Brothers rather than Bond.

    -Natalya is another character who gets a lot of love, but I just see her as a nag, never grateful Bond is there keeping her alive. Kara was also drug into the action through no choice of here own but didn't act like an unhappy wife with Bond. Then suddenly she's a transformed action heroine by the end. One of my least favorite Bond women.

    -BMW product placement with no payoff. Blah. Ignores the stage directive if you're going to bring a gun onstage make sure it goes off by the third act. Otherwise why explain it has stinger missiles, etc. if you don't use them.

    -Beach scene. Awkward. Say what you want about the Craig character issues, it isn't as bad as this.

    -As a fan of Dalton, the best Bond since Connery claims after just one film. He's okay, better at the physical stuff than I thought, but doesn't do much to stand out either.

    There are a lot of things I like in GE - credits sequence; statue park scene; ending in Cuba; fight with Trevelyan; Trevelyan and Bean are good; Xenia is fun even if she's a repeat of Fatima Blush; the scene where Bond sets a bomb and just shakes off the bullets flying overhead are pure Bond.

    I can understand people who discovered the series through this or the game holding GE in a special place. But it's such a mixed bag to this longtime fan and still is nearly 20 years later.

  • Posts: 3,333
    Excellent points @BT3366. I'm glad you brought up the "beach scene" and you're right, Zukovsky was way too cuddly to be believable as a threat. I can't disagree with any of the points you raised, including the pointless introduction of the BMW Agile 54 with it's stinger missiles that presumably ended up on the cutting room floor.
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    The list is too long... to say I was disappointed when this came out what was an understatement. And while there were a few moments I liked, overall I hated it. I was embarrassed by it. I was surprised anyone actually liked it. But then it was a gift for the Roger Moore loving crowd who had to ‘suffer’ through the Dalton years and was so glad to have 007 back. So, it wasn’t just the 6 year absence, it was the 10 year plus absence that the audience embraced the poster child Brosnan as Bond.

    While the Moore, casual, and 12 year old fan may have liked GE, this movie was the beginning of the dark years for the Fleming, Connery loving fans who had to suffer the general degradation of Bond into bargain bin dvd, made for tv (90s tv) mediocrity... I realize that EON had degraded Bond to varying degrees many times before, but never for a whole era, culminating in DAD.

    I appreciate that 12 years old of the time have sentimental, beer goggles love of this movie, but personally I would erase it along with the next three.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    The list is too long... to say I was disappointed when this came out what was an understatement. And while there were a few moments I liked, overall I hated it. I was embarrassed by it. I was surprised anyone actually liked it. But then it was a gift for the Roger Moore loving crowd who had to ‘suffer’ through the Dalton years and was so glad to have 007 back. So, it wasn’t just the 6 year absence, it was the 10 year plus absence that the audience embraced the poster child Brosnan as Bond.

    While the Moore, casual, and 12 year old fan may have liked GE, this movie was the beginning of the dark years for the Fleming, Connery loving fans who had to suffer the general degradation of Bond into bargain bin dvd, made for tv (90s tv) mediocrity... I realize that EON had degraded Bond to varying degrees many times before, but never for a whole era, culminating in DAD.

    I appreciate that 12 years old of the time have sentimental, beer goggles love of this movie, but personally I would erase it along with the next three.

    They are the only four truly horrible films in the franchise. Just like everything just came together to create lightning in a bottle with the first few films, the same thing happened in the Brosnan years, just in the opposite direction.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I couldn’t understand why people didn’t like it. I’ve seen it so much I can quote it from memory.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I couldn’t understand why people didn’t like it. I’ve seen it so much I can quote it from memory.
    What, people don't like GE? How can that be? Madness I tell you.

    Just thinking about it has compelled another viewing, which I might take in tonight.
  • Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I couldn’t understand why people didn’t like it. I’ve seen it so much I can quote it from memory.
    What, people don't like GE? How can that be? Madness I tell you.

    Just thinking about it has compelled another viewing, which I might take in tonight.

    I want nothing to do with such “people”
  • Posts: 3,333
    Don't take it to heart @BAIN123. You've got to understand that not everyone was a young kid when they first saw GE, nor were we watching it without the knowledge of the previous sixteen Bond pictures. I can perhaps understand why the Cumming character might have appealed more to the kiddywinkles than the adults at the time. Now that you're an adult yourself, you're now beginning to see things differently, whereas we saw them straight off. Compared to LTK, it's hard to see how this managed to get a PG-13 when it's mostly quite childish.
  • Posts: 1,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    Excellent points @BT3366. I'm glad you brought up the "beach scene" and you're right, Zukovsky was way too cuddly to be believable as a threat. I can't disagree with any of the points you raised, including the pointless introduction of the BMW Agile 54 with it's stinger missiles that presumably ended up on the cutting room floor.

    Thanks. I was prepared to be raked over the coals for my views.
  • Posts: 1,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I’ve seen it so much I can quote it from memory.

    And this is unique, how? I'd say a majority of us here can quote the dialogue from multiple films in the series.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited June 2018 Posts: 3,985
    "Sorry, forgot to knock" Cut this stupid moment.

    Cut out Joe Don Baker's Jack Wade. So annoying.

    The BMW placement is pathetic.

    The end title song is abysmal.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited June 2018 Posts: 5,185
    I would not want to change anything about one of my favorite movies of all time and why would i. I wholeheartedly embraced it when I first watched it, as it was my first Bond film. I had no references to what came before and so it was very easy to accept all the changes, and simply take it for what it was. And nothing has changed about that.

    Campbell had a perfect grip on the character second only to Terence Young, though Campbell reinvented Bond twice, and equally good both times.

    For the sake of this thread, if i had to change anything... Yeah maybe i would have replaced the porn track in the car chase with something less... porny. But thats about it. Everything else is a joy for me.
  • Posts: 11,189
    BT3366 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I’ve seen it so much I can quote it from memory.

    And this is unique, how? I'd say a majority of us here can quote the dialogue from multiple films in the series.

    The whole film?!
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 684
    - Lean more into Natalya's intelligence (she's an elite computer programmer after all) as a trait by which she can assert her '90s independence' from Bond. Instead of intelligence, she does this through what's been called above 'bossiness,' like Pam Bouvier with a keyboard. That she might happen to be bossy could be fine, but certainly not as it stands in the film, where it is the primary device for indicating 'strong female character.'

    - The way this progressivism is handled throughout in fact comes across as insecure, surface-level point-scoring. They seem to want to invite us to examine the character of James Bond (which they, more or less, sincerely get around to doing with Craig) without fully committing to it. Because simply showing us that this is the 90s, and that this Bond will be different than your dad's Bond, might go over our heads and in that case leave the franchise open to further accusations of sexism, we've got to have it all set out and explained to us: Bond has to tell Caroline he respects female authority, Moneypenny has to jokingly accuse Bond of harassment to diffuse any criticism that's this is actually the case, and in the exact same way M infamously has to call Bond a sexist and a misogynist, so that we're destined forever to have a PR sound-bite that Eon can point to. The aims of the whole shebang are screaming and waving madly from the rooftops. If this is the mission statement Eon wants to make, that's fine. But for heaven's sake be deft about it.

    - The former friend turning out to be the villain is an okay device, but it ultimately makes less impact than I think it's intended to. This is partly why the beach scene falls so flat. After the reveal, whatever special quality Alec has in the gallery of villains quickly turns generic. One way to fix this might've been to save the reveal for the train. I feel like Bond's capture at the hands of the Russians/tank chase pushes the idea of Alec and his betrayal to the backburner, or at least doesn't present much breathing space for us to observe Bond's processing of it. The beach pause following immediately might shape the tale better.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,595
    @Strog Absolutely agreed on your second point. It's the classic example of "show don't tell," and Goldeneye definitely falls victim to the inverse of that dictum.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited June 2018 Posts: 12,459
    I really would leave the film alone entirely, I mean that, except for the score. Only the music is lacking for me. I like everything else and it is so well scripted, well acted - a great Bond film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Nothing: you don't mess with perfection!

    In all seriousness though, I'd change nothing about the films themselves; some tweaks here and there would obviously (and objectively) strengthen particular portions of each film, but they're so ingrained in my memory that it'd be odd to watch GE with a better soundtrack, or see the corkscrew jump in TMWTGG without a slide whistle, or the obvious stunt doubles that are made apparent throughout the entire series, etc.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, I'd want a better soundtrack when it was released. Not talking about remaking it as for now.
  • edited June 2018 Posts: 1,469
    I like GE, and it's my favorite Brosnan film, though I agree with some issues that've been pointed out, including the music--I find some of it abysmal and maudlin, while in other parts it's fine.

    One scene that comes to mind is in the junkyard at night when Bond encounters Janus/Alec. It's a good scene but somehow I think it could've been done better to maximize Bond's shock at seeing his old pal again or to make Janus more menacing...though I admit if it was Daniel Craig, he wouldn't register shock on his face--he keeps it pretty well inside. I think Bain's right:
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    -change Bean’s unconvincing posh English accent.
    A villain who's menacing and looks that way may be a stereotype, but it works for me. Maybe the part was miscast. Maybe Janus could've used just a little more disfigurement from the facility explosion...maybe the script could've been improved to give Janus a psyche that includes touches of, say, the "dark" Largo in TB and the "certifiable" Largo in NSNA (or a little Walken-like Zorin)...and the music could've been more malevolent or haunting. Because for me it's a pivotal scene--the sense of betrayal between former comrades, and Alec's hidden (to Bond) past--though yes it's only one scene of many.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Nothing: you don't mess with perfection!

    In all seriousness though, I'd change nothing about the films themselves; some tweaks here and there would obviously (and objectively) strengthen particular portions of each film, but they're so ingrained in my memory that it'd be odd to watch GE with a better soundtrack, or see the corkscrew jump in TMWTGG without a slide whistle, or the obvious stunt doubles that are made apparent throughout the entire series, etc.

    This.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think GE suffers from being an underwritten film if anything. I read sometime ago that the script had several re-writes in the pre-production process. Like many Bond films it’s padded out with rather surpuflous action sequences.

    However it’s fortunate that these action scenes are (IMO) entertaining.

    I get what people mean when they say a lot of the issues raised in the film (Bond’s loyalty, Trevelyan’s hatred towards the British government) aren’t really explored as substantially as they perhaps could be.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GE is one of my all time faves, but I concede that it has a bit of a cartoonesque element to it. Onatopp, Trevelyan, Ouromov, Boris & even the Canadian Admiral are all borderline caricature and OTT. I don't personally have an issue with it, because I believe EON wanted to compensate for the Dalton years, but can appreciate that others may not agree.

    I love the Severnaya control sequence btw. I can never take my eyes of Scorupco during the entire thing.
  • Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    I love the Severnaya control sequence btw. I can never take my eyes of Scorupco during the entire thing.
    Now that's one part of the film I wouldn't touch. I know some find that it slows things down, but I think it's excellent.
  • Posts: 1,883
    Anybody else think the whole reference to the precredit sequence taking place in 1986 was unnecessary? We're not trying too hard to sweep the Dalton era under the carpet here.

    They could've presented it in a different way. Brosnan wasn't Bond in '86, why try rewriting history?


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Anybody else think the whole reference to the precredit sequence taking place in 1986 was unnecessary? We're not trying too hard to sweep the Dalton era under the carpet here.

    They could've presented it in a different way. Brosnan wasn't Bond in '86, why try rewriting history?
    I've never thought about this previously, and you've raised an interesting element. Perhaps that was indeed the whole point.

    Brosnan was reportedly the man in waiting for 9 years, having lost out on the role due to some nonsense at ABC or wherever. Moreover, the Dalton years weren't the most successful box office wise and represented a somewhat unique cinematic take on the character at the time.

    The "You were expecting someone else" comment in the famous trailer also played into this.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Nine years does seem quite a specific amount of time. Why not 10 or 5?
  • Posts: 1,595
    bondjames wrote: »
    GE is one of my all time faves, but I concede that it has a bit of a cartoonesque element to it. Onatopp, Trevelyan, Ouromov, Boris & even the Canadian Admiral are all borderline caricature and OTT. I don't personally have an issue with it, because I believe EON wanted to compensate for the Dalton years, but can appreciate that others may not agree.

    I love the Severnaya control sequence btw. I can never take my eyes of Scorupco during the entire thing.

    Not sure why that has to be a concession. I think all of the characters you mentioned (save perhaps Boris, who does grate) are very well drawn and well acted by the performers. Of course, I can appreciate disagreement, but I don’t think a penchant for a performance that verges on hammy is necessarily a concession so long as it’s executed as well as it is here. GE has one of the strongest supporting casts in the series, rivaled only by LALD and maybe one or two others.

    Agree with you and @Strog about the Severnaya control sequence.
  • Posts: 14,838
    bondjames wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Anybody else think the whole reference to the precredit sequence taking place in 1986 was unnecessary? We're not trying too hard to sweep the Dalton era under the carpet here.

    They could've presented it in a different way. Brosnan wasn't Bond in '86, why try rewriting history?
    I've never thought about this previously, and you've raised an interesting element. Perhaps that was indeed the whole point.

    Brosnan was reportedly the man in waiting for 9 years, having lost out on the role due to some nonsense at ABC or wherever. Moreover, the Dalton years weren't the most successful box office wise and represented a somewhat unique cinematic take on the character at the time.

    The "You were expecting someone else" comment in the famous trailer also played into this.

    It was cruel but it worked.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The "You were expecting someone else" comment in the famous trailer also played into this.
    It was cruel but it worked.
    I remember thinking that was a really crap move at the time. Unnecessarily insulting to Dalton. And several reviewers at the time made a big deal that the nine years basically dismissed the unpopular Dalton years, intentionally brining us back to when Brosnan had originally signed onto the role. It didn't sit well with me.
    Which raises another interesting question. The last two actors left in somewhat discarded fashion. Dalton as we've just discussed, and of course Brosnan famously.

    EON/MGM are not above a little dismissive 'cruelty' when the shift is required. They tend to focus forward at that point.
  • Posts: 1,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    The "You were expecting someone else" comment in the famous trailer also played into this.
    It was cruel but it worked.

    I remember thinking that was a really crap move at the time. Unnecessarily insulting to Dalton. And several reviewers at the time made a big deal that the nine years basically dismissed the unpopular Dalton years, intentionally brining us back to when Brosnan had originally signed onto the role. It didn't sit well with me.

    Nearly 23 years on, how do you feel about it?
Sign In or Register to comment.