›

Is James Bond just childish?

2»

Comments

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,845
    When I think of James Bond and “childish,” the thing that always comes to mind is the zoom-in of cleavage in OP.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,875
    mtm wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    I don't think a macho power fantasy is childish. If It were true, the world would be ruled by children.

    bait-tom-hardy.gif

    :D

    Aren't all of us simply children at the end of the day? None of us are all knowledgeable or always correct (despite our experience). That's including our world leaders (clearly).

    Or something like that. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though!
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,226
    mtm wrote: »
    I tend to think something like the Moore films are the most grown-up in a way, because they completely acknowledge how silly it all is and have fun with it. Not that pretty much all of them don't have an aspect of this of course.

    That the producers leaned in to silliness in no way made those film the most grown up. But that's what you tend to think.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,987
    Okay, rather than just saying no, why do you think that’s wrong?
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,226
    If you want to say that makes the producers more grown up because they acknowledge how silly the Moore films are, fine. But the films themselves are not grown up.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited September 4 Posts: 9,764
    All the films are on a sliding scale of silliness though, no? Dr. No and FRWL still introduce villains with steel hands, or a henchwoman with a poisoned tip shoe, and a secret Spectre Island…and these two early ones are considered the more serious films.

    OHMSS? Brainwashing the Angels of Death?

    LTK has ninjas and a televangelist working cover for Sanchez’s drug smuggling operations.

    NTTD has bionic eyes and nanobots.

    I mean they’re all silly fun. Moore’s no less or more than the height of absurdities seen in TB, YOLT DAF, DAD…
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,987
    CrabKey wrote: »
    If you want to say that makes the producers more grown up because they acknowledge how silly the Moore films are, fine. But the films themselves are not grown up.

    Well you're splitting hairs there, but I said they're the 'most grown-up in a way'; that doesn't make them grown-up, but their attitude of not taking it seriously is less adolescent to me than something like LTK which thinks it's all terribly gritty.

    I don't know what you mean by all this 'but that's what you tend to think' stuff.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,226
    Your exact words--I tend to think.... Now you're comparing how the producers of the Moore films feel with how the film LTK feels about itself. What are you really saying?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,987
    I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say. Feels like you’re attempting to start an argument so I’ll leave you to it.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 9:25am Posts: 5,875
    I guess you can argue the Moore films, silly as they can be, have a maturity to them in the context of the franchise. It’s the first era where they’re really able to lean into Moore’s strengths by the third film and make his Bond more distinctive from Connery’s (I don’t think Lazenby got that same luxury). As many have pointed out there’s more of an attempt to humanise Bond in Moore’s later films. I get the sense there’s a better balancing of that silliness alongside some more serious ideas in Moore’s middle/later films than, say, something like DAF (that’s subjective though).

    Depends on what you mean by childish I suppose. There’s definitely a lot of silliness in Moore’s era that the filmmakers indulge in, and it’s by design - very self conscious musical/sound gags, off the wall plot threads such as Dolly falling for Jaws and this leading to him helping Bond etc. I wouldn’t call them ‘dumb’ films if that makes sense, and like all of Bond it’s tongue in cheek.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited 10:34am Posts: 2,347
    I think MR and OP are more "family friendly" than TMWTGG or DAF. DAF and TMWTGG have some edge and MR and OP are more cartoonish.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,226
    mtm wrote: »
    I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say. Feels like you’re attempting to start an argument so I’ll leave you to it.

    I am trying to make sense of what you wrote. Producers acknowledging the lightness of one series makes those films "kind of" grown up, but because LTK is gritty, what? What are you saying? What's clear from years of posting here is you don't like to be questioned, so you always resort to "I don't know what you mean," "you're being argumentative," or "I am out."

    This thread began with characterizing Bond films as childish. Outlandish, preposterous, silly, semi-serious, etc., fair. Not childish.
Sign In or Register to comment.