›

007: What would you have done differently?

1…3839414344…56

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Maybe it would have been good to have had Trevelyan feature in one or two previous movies before he turned rogue?

    was he really that amazing a character....?

    Was Felix Leiter a particularly amazing character?
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    Agree with that. I mean, I love James Bond and can watch Moore duds, but not this dreck... they succeeded in making a diehard hate their product. Way to go EON.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2018 Posts: 11,189
    ...and they succeeded in bringing in a string of younger fans.

    They were more complacent with the likes of avtak. You can see that a mile off as that movie has virtually nothing original in it.

    Same Bond that had been in six previous films, same director that had directed two previous films and edited several before, same basic plot as GF, same tired Maurice Binder titles.
  • GetafixGetafix
    edited June 2018 Posts: 11,425
    what's original about GE?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    The plot (Bond going against a rogue agent), a female M, Bond, the director, the producer, Daniel Klienman.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I will give you the rogue agent and female M (predictable though) but not the others. that's simply changing of the guard. and Kleinman had done the LTK pop video
  • DoctorNoDoctorNo USA-Maryland
    Posts: 754
    And the prequels brought in younger fans... not an accomplishment when it degrades the series.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    As if people go to see Bond for originality any way. Quite the opposite.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ...and they succeeded in bringing in a string of younger fans.

    They were more complacent with the likes of avtak. You can see that a mile off as that movie has virtually nothing original in it.

    Same Bond that had been in six previous films, same director that had directed two previous films and edited several before, same basic plot as GF, same tired Maurice Binder titles.

    Glen had directed the 4 previous films actually
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2018 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ...and they succeeded in bringing in a string of younger fans.

    They were more complacent with the likes of avtak. You can see that a mile off as that movie has virtually nothing original in it.

    Same Bond that had been in six previous films, same director that had directed two previous films and edited several before, same basic plot as GF, same tired Maurice Binder titles.

    Glen had directed the 4 previous films actually

    Before AVTAK Glen had done FYEO and OP.
    Getafix wrote: »
    As if people go to see Bond for originality any way. Quite the opposite.

    Originality perhaps isn’t as important as enthusiasm and flair. I don’t feel a lot of those in AVTAK.

    GE to me seems much more energetic and enthusiastic.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DoctorNo wrote: »
    And the prequels brought in younger fans... not an accomplishment when it degrades the series.

    I would suggest you’re in the 0.0000000000000001% of film/Bond fans who think it ‘degrades’ the series. In other words, while you’re entitled to your opinion, it carries as much weight as a feather.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    ...and they succeeded in bringing in a string of younger fans.

    They were more complacent with the likes of avtak. You can see that a mile off as that movie has virtually nothing original in it.

    Same Bond that had been in six previous films, same director that had directed two previous films and edited several before, same basic plot as GF, same tired Maurice Binder titles.

    Glen had directed the 4 previous films actually

    Before AVTAK Glen had done FYEO and OP.

    oh yeah... it's late where I am...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    T
    N
    D


    T
    N
    D
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    TND is actually as close to a decent Bond film that Brozza came IMO. the first half is half watchable altho the stealth boat ending is dire
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I can't for the life of me understand why they picked the director of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot for Pierce's second film.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Spottiswoode did a very good job.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Agreed. TND is an underrated fun Bond movie.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,985
    For me TND is his worst because they took no risks. TWINE and DAD at least tried to bring something new to the series, even if they failed.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,896
    TND is considerably better directed than TWINE (Spottiswoode had been an editor for Peckinpah and understood action). Unfortunately 95% of TND feels recycled while the original 5% feels forced.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,595
    As always, I have such a hard time answering these questions. I think the finale of TND is pretty uninspired, but I’ve warmed on this one over the years, namely due to its unpretentious approach, Brosnan’s settling into the road, and Spottiswoode + Elswit have a very solid grasp on action and bodies in motion.

    Also, Price as Carver is incredibly underrated, and legitimately compelling.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. TND is an underrated fun Bond movie.

    it pains me to say it but I might have to agree. I see it knocked a lot on here but it's undoubtedly pierce' s best.
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    As always, I have such a hard time answering these questions. I think the finale of TND is pretty uninspired, but I’ve warmed on this one over the years, namely due to its unpretentious approach, Brosnan’s settling into the road, and Spottiswoode + Elswit have a very solid grasp on action and bodies in motion.

    Also, Price as Carver is incredibly underrated, and legitimately compelling.

    I agree. Price does a decent job. Definitely the best of the Brosnan era villains. Better than Waltz's Brofeld arguably as well
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,273
    TND has its upsides. Works perfectly as a no-nonsense, action-filled Bond outing. Minimal emotional baggage, fairly memorable villains and women, and an amazingly cool performance from Brosnan. I don’t love it as much as GE, but it’s stil got to be his second best easily.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    FoxRox wrote: »
    TND has its upsides. Works perfectly as a no-nonsense, action-filled Bond outing. Minimal emotional baggage, fairly memorable villains and women, and an amazingly cool performance from Brosnan. I don’t love it as much as GE, but it’s stil got to be his second best easily.

    My thoughts as well.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    superior on every level to GE in my opinion. it's totally derivative (As is GE) but does it all much more slickly. the PTS actually feels like you might be watching a Bond movie rather than a really bad 80s action flick.

    the film actually looks a bit contemporary and cool as well as opposed to the late 80s sheen that still washes over GE. and no serra score!

    dare I say Michelle Yeoh is half decent as well? Pierce definitely seems comfortable in her company.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    The 80's sheen is one of the things I love about GE. It gives it a nice smokey atmosphere. Serra's score is also part of the experience. And then TND is the hammer that breaks down the wall for the beginning of the modern era.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2018 Posts: 11,189
    I like Pryce too but like most of the Brosnan villains Carver is an under-developed character.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    People always talk about underdeveloped characters in the Brosnan era, but forget that many in the preceding and succeeding eras have had plenty of underdeveloped characters whether villains or allies. Big example? Blofeld. Other than OHMSS to a lesser extent, Blofeld has been a cartoonish caricature of a supervillain in the Bond films. In comparison, Carver is three-dimensional.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Carver is often quite cartooney and theatrical (his “hold the presses” opening speech) but yes there are some moments where we see a character with a bit more potential.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I quite like that speech myself. He comes off psychotic with a lot of enthusiasm much like many television personalities with "visions". Heck, there are many real-world parallels to Carver, if not worse.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I like the speech too but it seems very OTT.
Sign In or Register to comment.