Stupid In A Bond movie?

135

Comments

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited March 2023 Posts: 3,472
    Here's what Connery had said in the interview of Entertainment Weekly regarding Dalton, and he had also some good words for Brosnan.
    They have to rethink the whole idea." His take on other, more recent Bonds: "Timothy Dalton has Shakespearean training, but he underestimated the role. The character has to be graceful and move well and have a certain measure of charm as well as be dangerous." He believes Pierce Brosnan, who'll be playing Bond in Goldeneye, currently filming in London, will have an easier time of it. "He's a good actor," he says."He'll add some new elements to it."

    Here's the link to his interview: https://ew.com/article/2014/02/05/sean-connery-his-career/
  • Posts: 1,909
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!

    Did he actually said that? Because of what I knew and what I've read in some articles with those interviews of Connery, that he praised Roger Moore, and at one point Connery did told that Moore's Bond is what Bond should be, I think Connery would never said that to a close friend of his, he and Moore are both close friends, there's even a talk at the time that Connery would've liked to invite Moore to have a cameo in NSNA, but it didn't happened.

    But if there's one thing I remember was he detested the Dalton Era (and Dalton's Bond), because Connery though that Dalton underestimated the role, and didn't took it seriously, he'd also said that Dalton's Bond lacked the charm, suave and charisma that's needed for the role.

    If Dalton lacked the charm, suave and charisma needed to play Bond, then what does it say about Daniel Craig?? Lol.
    I haven't heard many people say that they didn't like DC as Bond. In fact, most people rank him with Connery as the best to ever play 007 - but looking back on his tenure now, it sure wasn't very fun lol. I think Craig nailed the fabled "blunt instrument" aspect that Fleming gave the character. But, like Dalton before him, he took it all too seriously. And he easily had to have the fewest lines of any actor who played Bond (minus Lazenby, maybe)! He was a man of action, I guess. Not words.

    I've seen that lack of fun criticism of Craig and his era by those who don't like it and my response is it depends on what one's definition of fun is. Personally, I don't find Bond hanging off a firetruck being chased by Keystone Cops, driving invisible cars or trading forced one-liners that are meant to appeal to schoolkids to be fun. What I do like are amazing stunts and getting a taste of the character Fleming created and that world.

    Then again, they did try that approach with SP with things such as the car chase through Rome and the Jaws/Oddjob approach to Hinx and it really felt out of place. Hopefully the next era will get the balance right.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited March 2023 Posts: 3,472
    I've just realized that one of the stupid things in Casino Royale was Bond suddenly going to retire after finding love with Vesper, I mean was he a beginner as a 00 agent in that film, right? He worked hard to have that job that he had his first two kills, I mean he's just finally getting started to his actual work as a 00 agent, then when he fell in with Vesper, it's easy for him that he would decide to retire too early? I don't know if how many days in Casino Royale with him just getting started working, maybe he's just one week or four days as a 00 agent, yet he would easily retire after falling in love?

    It doesn't makes sense.

    In the book, the retiring thing worked better, because the Book already introduced Bond as an experienced agent, to the point that he's the senior of the Three 00 agents, for sure in the book, he'd already spent years of working as a 00 agent, so him finally deciding to retire with Vesper makes more sense and meaningful in the book given that in the book, he's already a seasoned 00 agent.

    In the film, it's like he just started off being a 00 agent, he's just beginning to work as a 00 agent, he's just new to the job, it's his first mission, then suddenly he would retire with Vesper very quickly?

    I think the film should just followed the book with Bond just introduced as already a long time professional (experienced) than being a rookie who just started off his job in three days 😅.

    Edit: And in the book, he's given that mission because he's the best gambler in the MI6 (Double O Section), meanwhile in the film, it's given because it's his first actual mission.

    For me, it's a bit of a stupid thing.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,959
    I guess that's a matter of opinion @MI6HQ
    I find the answer to Bond looking to retire is mentioned in the film, but that's okay.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,472
    Benny wrote: »
    I guess that's a matter of opinion @MI6HQ
    I find the answer to Bond looking to retire is mentioned in the film, but that's okay.

    Other than he fell in love with Vesper, I don't know the other reason why, maybe I need to watch the film again?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,959
    Just watch DAF, that’s got a whole lot of stupid going on. But it’s so much fun it’s easy to overlook it.
  • Posts: 1,711
    I don't confuse humor with silliness. A humorous quip can work well in a serious thriller. Silliness robs a film of it being taken seriously.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,826
    There's a very fine line between humour and silliness, and where that line is is really a subjective matter. I mean, you can't suddenly have a Monty Python sketch-type situation in a Bond film, but you may consider those "keeping my tip [or 'the British end'] up" and "he's attempting re-entry, sir" as clearly silly, but most of us would probably still class them as humourus. Or both, since humour and silliness are nor really mutually exclusive.
  • Posts: 1,711
    From my subjective pov, the line is not fine. Typically silly is devoid of wit. The RM climax gags got old fast. I enjoyed the films when they were more serious and less prone to parodying themselves. The pigeon, the gondola, the Tarzan yell, sit, etc. all signaled that the series wanted to be something other than what it had been. RM took the character too far into unflappable. I don't know if this was where the films were going or they went that direction because RM couldn't play the kind of Bond SC had.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,472
    CrabKey wrote: »
    From my subjective pov, the line is not fine. Typically silly is devoid of wit. The RM climax gags got old fast. I enjoyed the films when they were more serious and less prone to parodying themselves. The pigeon, the gondola, the Tarzan yell, sit, etc. all signaled that the series wanted to be something other than what it had been. RM took the character too far into unflappable. I don't know if this was where the films were going or they went that direction because RM couldn't play the kind of Bond SC had.

    RM wanted to be different from SC, remember (although I don't believe in such statement), but many people thought Lazenby tried to imitate Connery and it didn't worked out, so when RM was hired they've tried to be different than his predecessors.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,135
    I think the producers realized that with George they had too closely aligned Laz to Connery. So we got the gadget scenes, we got martinis, etc. They wanted to make sure everyone knew this was the same character.

    When they cast Moore they took a different tack. Hamilton told Moore that there would be no martinis, no casino scenes, even the smoking was a cigar and not a cigarette. Only until FYEO did they fully embrace some of those aspects of the character again.
  • Posts: 1,711
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    From my subjective pov, the line is not fine. Typically silly is devoid of wit. The RM climax gags got old fast. I enjoyed the films when they were more serious and less prone to parodying themselves. The pigeon, the gondola, the Tarzan yell, sit, etc. all signaled that the series wanted to be something other than what it had been. RM took the character too far into unflappable. I don't know if this was where the films were going or they went that direction because RM couldn't play the kind of Bond SC had.

    RM wanted to be different from SC, remember (although I don't believe in such statement), but many people thought Lazenby tried to imitate Connery and it didn't worked out, so when RM was hired they've tried to be different than his predecessors.

    I have never considered GL as an imitation of SC. His Bond hewed closer to SC than did RM. For me RM has always been a parody of the Bond character.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,732
    CrabKey wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    From my subjective pov, the line is not fine. Typically silly is devoid of wit. The RM climax gags got old fast. I enjoyed the films when they were more serious and less prone to parodying themselves. The pigeon, the gondola, the Tarzan yell, sit, etc. all signaled that the series wanted to be something other than what it had been. RM took the character too far into unflappable. I don't know if this was where the films were going or they went that direction because RM couldn't play the kind of Bond SC had.

    RM wanted to be different from SC, remember (although I don't believe in such statement), but many people thought Lazenby tried to imitate Connery and it didn't worked out, so when RM was hired they've tried to be different than his predecessors.

    I have never considered GL as an imitation of SC. His Bond hewed closer to SC than did RM. For me RM has always been a parody of the Bond character.

    And on that note, here's my Super 8 1981 short film!
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,372
    Oh that was great fun @chrisisall.

    I gotta say that was very informed film-making from the camera angles (that shuttle!) to the model work to the fight stunts to the sound effects to the choices for matching music and the stock footage inter-cut. Performances eyebrows also fun to watch. Not sure where you found that cat that likes to wrestle, he seemed to be having a minor ball until he got tired of it all and pulled a YOLT.

    Good to know it's preserved and not lost footage. Maybe there's more.

  • Posts: 15,951
    chrisisall wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    From my subjective pov, the line is not fine. Typically silly is devoid of wit. The RM climax gags got old fast. I enjoyed the films when they were more serious and less prone to parodying themselves. The pigeon, the gondola, the Tarzan yell, sit, etc. all signaled that the series wanted to be something other than what it had been. RM took the character too far into unflappable. I don't know if this was where the films were going or they went that direction because RM couldn't play the kind of Bond SC had.

    RM wanted to be different from SC, remember (although I don't believe in such statement), but many people thought Lazenby tried to imitate Connery and it didn't worked out, so when RM was hired they've tried to be different than his predecessors.

    I have never considered GL as an imitation of SC. His Bond hewed closer to SC than did RM. For me RM has always been a parody of the Bond character.

    And on that note, here's my Super 8 1981 short film!

    YES! Great stuff, @chrisisall.
  • Posts: 1,711
    chrisisall wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    From my subjective pov, the line is not fine. Typically silly is devoid of wit. The RM climax gags got old fast. I enjoyed the films when they were more serious and less prone to parodying themselves. The pigeon, the gondola, the Tarzan yell, sit, etc. all signaled that the series wanted to be something other than what it had been. RM took the character too far into unflappable. I don't know if this was where the films were going or they went that direction because RM couldn't play the kind of Bond SC had.

    RM wanted to be different from SC, remember (although I don't believe in such statement), but many people thought Lazenby tried to imitate Connery and it didn't worked out, so when RM was hired they've tried to be different than his predecessors.

    I have never considered GL as an imitation of SC. His Bond hewed closer to SC than did RM. For me RM has always been a parody of the Bond character.

    And on that note, here's my Super 8 1981 short film!

    Imagine what those homemade Bond films would have looked liked with today's technology. Fun stuff. I daresay there are thousands of such treasures waiting to be discovered.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,704
    There absolutely were stupid things in the early movies. Tatiana makes the following offer to MI6: "Help me defect, and I'll give you a decoder. And by that I mean you have to blow up a Soviet Embassy in Istanbul and go in and take it yourself." This is a crazy and stupid "offer".

    YOLT is full of stupid of course, with lots of things being filmed without cameras, but it's so strange that Spectre steals capsules from both sides. In the real world, that would make the involvement of a third party perfectly clear, so they have to write the Soviets (and especially the Americans) as being dumber than a box of rocks. Why not steal from just the Americans, Ernst?

    I also love how Osato instructs his people to let Bond leave the building so they can murder him outside in broad daylight. Totally inexplicable!

    Roger Ebert famously pointed out that microchips aren't really manufactured in Silicon Valley, so Zorin is actually killing his customers, and not his competition!

    And of course Le Chiffre warns Bond that he's going to enter Vesper's account number and Bond's password, which is exactly what Vesper and Bond were going to do anyway before Le Chiffre interfered. Bond doesn't think this is odd.
  • Posts: 1,711
    Bond doesn't think this is odd.

    The writers didn't think it odd.

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited March 2023 Posts: 1,704
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Bond doesn't think this is odd.

    The writers didn't think it odd.

    The writers also didn't think it's odd that unfilmed events are shown on screens in YOLT. 🤷

    Oh, another one: in Moonraker, when the cable car stops, Bond says something like "All I know is we're better off outside than in!" and then climbs on the roof. That's pretty weird and stupid!
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,135
    That's a great one @ProfJoeButcher makes no sense to go out and not stay in. It would be better to stay in the car, but then of course we can't have a Bond and Jaws fight. The writers painted themselves into a corner.

    I always question Bond sending Tily to the woods in GF. What was she supposed to do if she made it? Would Bond leave his cover to run after her? Again, the writers painted themselves into a corner. Tily lived longer in the book but they wished to have her die here as a sacrificial lamb.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited March 2023 Posts: 1,704
    Kronsteen in FRWL: "The man the British will almost certainly use on a mission of this sort would be their agent James Bond."

    Given that the mission, as outlined by Spectre, is for MI6 to send James Bond specifically, I think this is a pretty safe bet. Kronsteen might be less of a genius than we're meant to think. :))

    In Octopussy, M says they don't really have any leads to go on. 009 was dressed like a clown when he was found. Is that something he just did for fun?

    And an especially annoying one to me: Tracy is absolutely not having it with Blofeld, but after she hears a mysterious voice from an approaching plane, she becomes much more amiable, and Blofeld falls for it immediately.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited March 2023 Posts: 3,472
    Kronsteen in FRWL: "The man the British will almost certainly use on a mission of this sort would be their agent James Bond."

    Given that the mission, as outlined by Spectre, is for MI6 to send James Bond specifically, I think this is a pretty safe bet. Kronsteen might be less of a genius than we're meant to think. :))

    In Octopussy, M says they don't really have any leads to go on. 009 was dressed like a clown when he was found. Is that something he just did for fun?

    And an especially annoying one to me: Tracy is absolutely not having it with Blofeld, but after she hears a mysterious voice from an approaching plane, she becomes much more amiable, and Blofeld falls for it immediately.

    I didn't know that FRWL one, actually, if there's one stupid thing in that film for me is how did SPECTRE found out that Bond was the one who had killed Dr. No? Even down to his looks or what he looked like, hence Grant's training in the PTS? I mean did Dr. No reported to SPECTRE about Bond and told them what he looked like before he died? How did they knew those? If one might make a suspicion that it's Honey Ryder who's a secret spy working for SPECTRE reported it to them that it's Bond who'd killed Dr. No and identifying his looks 😅, then possibly (as she's also in the island, it's impossible that she didn't know about Dr. No's existence in that island), are there anyone who had reported it to SPECTRE about the man who had killed Dr. No?

    And since I'm on talking about Dr. No, why was Honey Ryder could freely hunt for shells in Dr. No's island? Why Dr. No didn't suspected her of entering the island? Did Dr. No never noticed Honey Ryder entering his island? Means Dr. No was stupid enough not to noticed those strangers entering his island, except Bond. 😅

    Yes, the Octopussy one was quite stupid, as M should have a thought of having 009 as a lead, but again, maybe what M was talking here was yes, they've sent 009 but he'd failed to gather any information, so there's no lead, no info so far.

    In OHMSS, yes Tracy was bored with Blofeld, thinking she's hopeless, but when she heard that mysterious voice from the plane, she thought it's her father along with Bond, so in able to distract Blofeld, she played with him, showing that she's interested in him, Blofeld fell for this because he believed that he'd already caught Tracy's trust, when what he didn't know was Tracy was just deceiving him to avoid his attention from the arrival of Bond and her father.

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited March 2023 Posts: 3,472
    It's funny someone mentioned this in Reddit, and I thought it's stupid (especially in M's part)?
    In Quantum of Solace, When Bond was investigating Quantum at an Opera house, he dropped one of the suspects off a roof who survived. However that suspect was then shot by another Quantum agent. Even though M16 could investigate the body with the ballistics showing that Bond couldn't have shot him, they just assume Bond killed him like every other suspect he was supposed to interrogate.

    Thus, Bond is forced to go rogue and take down Quantum by himself. (How many times has Bond left M16 only to basically do their job for them?)

    Instead of sending multiple armed agents to take Bond in and send him home, M thought it was a good idea to have an attractive girl do it instead. Bond, whose sexual prowess with women is second to none, seduces her instead and he does not go back home. M accuses Bond of getting that girl killed when arguably she was the one who got her involved with him in the first place.

    What do you guys think of M's actions in Quantum of Solace, is it stupid or not?

  • Posts: 3,389
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    It's funny someone mentioned this in Reddit, and I thought it's stupid (especially in M's part)?
    In Quantum of Solace, When Bond was investigating Quantum at an Opera house, he dropped one of the suspects off a roof who survived. However that suspect was then shot by another Quantum agent. Even though M16 could investigate the body with the ballistics showing that Bond couldn't have shot him, they just assume Bond killed him like every other suspect he was supposed to interrogate.

    Thus, Bond is forced to go rogue and take down Quantum by himself. (How many times has Bond left M16 only to basically do their job for them?)

    Instead of sending multiple armed agents to take Bond in and send him home, M thought it was a good idea to have an attractive girl do it instead. Bond, whose sexual prowess with women is second to none, seduces her instead and he does not go back home. M accuses Bond of getting that girl killed when arguably she was the one who got her involved with him in the first place.

    What do you guys think of M's actions in Quantum of Solace, is it stupid or not?

    I can sort of excuse Bond having to go rogue because M thinks he's shot the guy. MI6 would have to confirm the ballistics and that'd take time because it took place in another country's jurisdiction. It's a bit contrived that Bond doesn't immediately specify to M that he didn't in fact shoot the man but oh well....

    Getting Fields to escort Bond back is incredibly stupid, yes. Must admit even when I watched the film for the first time I thought it was silly, which is probably what separates much of these other 'stupid' things in Bond films from that - that's to say I noticed/thought about it in the moment.
  • CharmianBondCharmianBond Pett Bottom, Kent
    Posts: 553
    Fields would probably play well in a Moore film especially the whole 'seemingly naked under a trench coat' look but in a sequel to Casino Royale it speaks to how muddled the production of Quantum was. Do we want to critique the fridging of female characters by aping Goldfinger or give Bond a quick fling because that's what usually happens by this point in the film?
  • edited March 2023 Posts: 3,389
    Fields would probably play well in a Moore film especially the whole 'seemingly naked under a trench coat' look but in a sequel to Casino Royale it speaks to how muddled the production of Quantum was. Do we want to critique the fridging of female characters by aping Goldfinger or give Bond a quick fling because that's what usually happens by this point in the film?

    I always wonder if they could have made that character work a bit better (I mean, after all it's a Bond movie - you kind of need an interesting secondary female character sometimes, much like Paloma in NTTD). If she had been a contact of Mathis or something perhaps the contrivances of her 'falling for Bond' could have been ironed out. It makes little sense in the film we got considering she generally seems like a professional and yet goes along with Bond a little too readily afterwards. Even if they'd kept her as an MI6 agent who fell for Bond it'd been better if she'd done something more than just tripping Elvis. Maybe even if she'd lived but helped Bond escape from the MI6 bodyguards at the hotel it would have been better.

    It's a shame because Gemma Arterton is actually a very likeable screen presence and I think has had some great roles. I know she's actually not too fond of her role in QOS and I understand why. They could have done more with that character and that actress.
  • Posts: 5,905
    Among the most stupid plans in a Bond movie, Kananga/Mr. Big is right in the top five : he wants to cultivate poppies in order to produce heroin (so far so good), then give that heroin away to his customers, thus driving away his competitors and cornering the market for himself. Didn't he think that maybe his competitors (mostly the Mob at that time, but also quite a few cartels) would let him do it ? Mobsters don't take kindly to people muscling on their turf like that. Somebody clearly hadn't thought of the consequences.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,842
    Gerard wrote: »
    Among the most stupid plans in a Bond movie, Kananga/Mr. Big is right in the top five : he wants to cultivate poppies in order to produce heroin (so far so good), then give that heroin away to his customers, thus driving away his competitors and cornering the market for himself. Didn't he think that maybe his competitors (mostly the Mob at that time, but also quite a few cartels) would let him do it ? Mobsters don't take kindly to people muscling on their turf like that. Somebody clearly hadn't thought of the consequences.

    The Hamilton Bonds generally didn't care all that much about plot logic and credibility. 😄
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,826
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The Hamilton Bonds generally didn't care all that much about plot logic and credibility. 😄
    Oh yes. Quite unlike the Gilbert Bonds and the Glen Bonds and even the Young Bonds and the Tamahori Bond and you name it, who were all role models of logic and authenticity. Right?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,842
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The Hamilton Bonds generally didn't care all that much about plot logic and credibility. 😄
    Oh yes. Quite unlike the Gilbert Bonds and the Glen Bonds and even the Young Bonds and the Tamahori Bond and you name it, who were all role models of logic and authenticity. Right?

    Not at all. Very few Bonds ever did. 😉
Sign In or Register to comment.