Controversial opinions about Bond films

24567696

Comments

  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    Sandy wrote:
    What does one thing have to do with the other? I'm both a Dalton AND a Craig fan yet I find Dalton's acting annoying in a lot of LTK scenes!
    Because for someone to think Daniel Craig's Bond is an improvement over Dalton's Bond is just simply wrong. Also, what did you find annoying about Dalton's performance in License to Kill?

  • Posts: 12,432
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    What does one thing have to do with the other? I'm both a Dalton AND a Craig fan yet I find Dalton's acting annoying in a lot of LTK scenes!
    Because for someone to think Daniel Craig's Bond is an improvement over Dalton's Bond is just simply wrong.

    Thank you. I think craig is a good actor and a good bond, but he is no where near daltons level.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 12,432
    Rossi wrote:
    Judi Dench shouldn't have returned for Casino Royale. It's confusing!

    I don't have a problem with dench, but I do have a problem with the way M has been used in craigs era. M should sit behind a desk and give bond his mission. It was original to use her more in TWINE, but enough already.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    Thank you. I think craig is a good actor and a good bond, but he is no where near daltons level.
    If Craig actually got a decent Bond script, he might actually be quite good. But, as they say, wrong place, wrong time.

  • edited March 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Rossi wrote:
    Judi Dench shouldn't have returned for Casino Royale. It's confusing!

    No it's not. Just pretend you haven't seen her before. If its any help her hair looks different :p

    Thank you. I think craig is a good actor and a good bond, but he is no where near daltons level.

    I struggled to decide which more "serious" actor I preferred in the role but ultimately it came down to this scene:



    Craig just has a bit more of that...twinkle and laid back charm about him.
  • Posts: 12,432
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Thank you. I think craig is a good actor and a good bond, but he is no where near daltons level.
    If Craig actually got a decent Bond script, he might actually be quite good. But, as they say, wrong place, wrong time.

    Well I thought CR was decent enough, but QOS was just awful. At least with DAD it felt like bond. It felt like a crap bond, but still bond.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Rossi wrote:
    Judi Dench shouldn't have returned for Casino Royale. It's confusing!

    And yet Bernard Lee went through 3 Bonds as M and no one complains about that.
  • Posts: 12,432
    Rossi wrote:
    Judi Dench shouldn't have returned for Casino Royale. It's confusing!

    And yet Bernard Lee went through 3 Bonds as M and no one complains about that.

    Wasn't a reboot then though, it was carrying on.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    Well I thought CR was decent enough, but QOS was just awful. At least with DAD it felt like bond. It felt like a crap bond, but still bond.
    I though Quantum of Solace was a major improvement over Casino Royale, actually. I can actually sit through it, which is more than I can say for Casino Royale.
    Rossi wrote:
    Judi Dench shouldn't have returned for Casino Royale. It's confusing!
    And yet Bernard Lee went through 3 Bonds as M and no one complains about that.
    That's because Bernard Lee was good.
  • Posts: 11,175
    @Dr_Metz. Why is Royale so bad?
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Rossi wrote:

    I struggled to decide which more "serious" actor I preferred in the role but ultimately it came down to this scene:



    Craig just has a bit more of that...twinkle and laid back charm about him.

    I think you summed it up quite well.
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Sandy wrote:
    What does one thing have to do with the other? I'm both a Dalton AND a Craig fan yet I find Dalton's acting annoying in a lot of LTK scenes!
    Because for someone to think Daniel Craig's Bond is an improvement over Dalton's Bond is just simply wrong. Also, what did you find annoying about Dalton's performance in License to Kill?

    I think Dalton's a great actor and a great Bond, don't get me wrong! But in some scenes he looks so unconfortable that I feel like I should offer him an Activia yogurt if you know what I mean.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 157
    My complaint refers to the fact that in 2006 James Bond series was rebooted. Q, Moneypenny, Charles Robinson, Damian Falco, Michael Kitchen's Bill Tanner. They do not appear in this new series (one or other has been recasted since then). Because Bond's universe has been re-imagined in 2006. Is a whole new series! But, Judi Dench is strangely retained. Which I think is confusing (just like my english, I suppose HAHA).
  • Posts: 774
    -I love QoS
    -I hate YOLT, DAF, DAD, and the Moore era with a passion
    -Laz is/always has been an egocentric, self-centered, and misogynistic prick
    -Dan is the #2 best Bond, only beaten by King Sean
    -The entire Brosnan era is full of missed opportunity
    -Having Dench's M being closer to the action and Bond himself is a positive
    -Bond should always be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead of a walking comedy show or pretty boy
    -All Bond actors should follow the Sean Connery Bond blueprint, and add a nice touch themselves
    -Mathis should never have been killed off in QoS, the worst mistake of the film sans the editing and villains.


    I agree with everything but the Moore era and Lazenby (although being an Australian I may be biased in his favour). Lazenby got terrible advice, and although that doesn't excuse everything, he clearly regrets his decisions now. And I don't mind Moore too much.

    Mathis shouldn't have been killed, he was a good character and a good addition to the film. My favourite Bond ally since Kerim Bey (not including series regulars like Felix, Moneypenny, Q, M)
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Dr_Metz. Why is Royale so bad?
    1. It's extremely hypocritical. It calls itself "gritty" and "down-to-earth", yet it's probably one of the most unrealistic films in the series. Bond should have probably been killed for breaking into his bosses flat, just after getting promoted no less, yet he isn't because it's a plot device. Also, don't get me started on the chase through the construction site.

    2. Looks of self-approval. Just about all the actors have an air of smugness around them, like they all think what they're making is really amazing because it's taking itself seriously. I wanted to punch everybody's face in the film. Even the women.

    3. Nothing like Bond. Yeah, I get it supposed to be "before he becomes the Bond we know and love" and all that, but he just comes off as an idiot/prick. He has no class whatsoever. Also, why does it take him this long to become "the Bond we all know and love"? He was in the SAS for, what I remember, was a while, you think he would have honed his social skills and the way he completes his missions, but I guess not.

    4. Changing Baccarat to Poker. This just pissed me off.

    5. It's so goddamn boring. Honestly, it's not an interesting film. Not because it's long either.

    I would like to go into more detail, but I'm too lazy. I would also like to add films like this can be done well. The first four Connery films, OHMSS, TLD, and LTK prove that Bond can take itself seriously, and still be entertaining. Although OHMSS gets a bit boring at points as well, at least for me.


  • Posts: 774
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Dr_Metz. Why is Royale so bad?


    4. Changing Baccarat to Poker. This just pissed me off.

    Personally I find poker an easier game to understand, it's more fun to play; just a better game in general. And it suited the more modern take on the story, baccarat isn't quite so popular anymore.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Haha. Those are all valid points and I see what you mean about the "smugness". In the scene above for instance you can imagine the script writers smirking to themselves when they finished writing it (or indeed when they watched the scene at the premier).

    I still enjoy the scene though :D

    Agreed with Volante above. Not many people know how to play Baccarat anymore. Texas Hold 'em is the more popular, more accessible game.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Agreed with Volante above. Not many people know how to play Baccarat anymore. Texas Hold 'em is the more popular, more accessible game.
    I guess it made sense to change it, but I just thought it made the whole thing a bit classless. Although how popular was Baccarat when GoldenEye came out, really?

  • Posts: 11,175
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Agreed with Volante above. Not many people know how to play Baccarat anymore. Texas Hold 'em is the more popular, more accessible game.
    I guess it made sense to change it, but I just thought it made the whole thing a bit classless. Although how popular was Baccarat when GoldenEye came out, really?

    Yeah I guess but that game wasn't exactly integral to the plot like the way it was in Royale.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    edited March 2012 Posts: 28,231
    Volante wrote:
    -I love QoS
    -I hate YOLT, DAF, DAD, and the Moore era with a passion
    -Laz is/always has been an egocentric, self-centered, and misogynistic prick
    -Dan is the #2 best Bond, only beaten by King Sean
    -The entire Brosnan era is full of missed opportunity
    -Having Dench's M being closer to the action and Bond himself is a positive
    -Bond should always be cold, ruthless, and calculating instead of a walking comedy show or pretty boy
    -All Bond actors should follow the Sean Connery Bond blueprint, and add a nice touch themselves
    -Mathis should never have been killed off in QoS, the worst mistake of the film sans the editing and villains.


    I agree with everything but the Moore era and Lazenby (although being an Australian I may be biased in his favour). Lazenby got terrible advice, and although that doesn't excuse everything, he clearly regrets his decisions now. And I don't mind Moore too much.

    Mathis shouldn't have been killed, he was a good character and a good addition to the film. My favourite Bond ally since Kerim Bey (not including series regulars like Felix, Moneypenny, Q, M)

    Don't get me wrong, Moore is a great chap off the screen, but as Bond I just don't like it. I agree with your opinion on Mathis. Kerim has to be one of(if not already) my favorite allies Bond has had. Quarrel is up there as well, and Mathis for sure. Unfortunately all meet a nasty end. I hoped for a Mathis close to Bond's age that would work with him through French intelligence like in the novels, but alas it didn't happen. If a reboot comes after a while I'd love to see a Mathis that is the same age as Bond and have a history of espionage and teaming up in missions with him. He appears in the novels and is such a great character, yet it is only until CR that he was used, then thrown away so unjustly. A huge missed opportunity right there, and I shake my head in steaming anger every time I see the scene. Mathis needs to be in the Craig era. He's too great of a character to waste like that.
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Dr_Metz. Why is Royale so bad?
    1. It's extremely hypocritical. It calls itself "gritty" and "down-to-earth", yet it's probably one of the most unrealistic films in the series. Bond should have probably been killed for breaking into his bosses flat, just after getting promoted no less, yet he isn't because it's a plot device. Also, don't get me started on the chase through the construction site.

    2. Looks of self-approval. Just about all the actors have an air of smugness around them, like they all think what they're making is really amazing because it's taking itself seriously. I wanted to punch everybody's face in the film. Even the women.

    3. Nothing like Bond. Yeah, I get it supposed to be "before he becomes the Bond we know and love" and all that, but he just comes off as an idiot/prick. He has no class whatsoever. Also, why does it take him this long to become "the Bond we all know and love"? He was in the SAS for, what I remember, was a while, you think he would have honed his social skills and the way he completes his missions, but I guess not.

    4. Changing Baccarat to Poker. This just pissed me off.

    5. It's so goddamn boring. Honestly, it's not an interesting film. Not because it's long either.

    I would like to go into more detail, but I'm too lazy. I would also like to add films like this can be done well. The first four Connery films, OHMSS, TLD, and LTK prove that Bond can take itself seriously, and still be entertaining. Although OHMSS gets a bit boring at points as well, at least for me.


    So @Dr_Metz does have a sense of humor. In all seriousness, if anyone ever laid a finger on Eva they'd have my fist barreling into their head until they went deaf in the ears.

  • Posts: 562
    A few of my 'controversial' opinions on Bond:

    - I quite liked QoS and regularly rank it in my top ten (along with LtK).
    - I think Donald Pleasance was awful as Blofeld.
    - I liked Madonna's theme for DAD.
    - I think TMWTGG was one of Moore's best performances.
    - I like all of Gardner's Bond novels and think some are just as good as Fleming's.
  • Posts: 12,432
    Volante wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @Dr_Metz. Why is Royale so bad?


    4. Changing Baccarat to Poker. This just pissed me off.

    Personally I find poker an easier game to understand, it's more fun to play; just a better game in general. And it suited the more modern take on the story, baccarat isn't quite so popular anymore.

    I prefer poker too.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited March 2012 Posts: 15,534
    CR is an appallingly bad Bond film, can't stand it.

    Craig is a horrible Bond. No words can describe how much his Bond is just wrong and bad.

    I love Brosnan as Bond.

    I love DAD, MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, DAF.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,495
    GF the novel is better than the film.

    FRWL is not as good as DN.

    TND will in time be regarded as the most classic Brosnan film.

    QOS is one of the most stylish Bond films.

    AVTAK features a finale worthy of top 10 status.

    Roger Moore's James Bond is equally as iconic as Connery's incarnation.





  • edited March 2012 Posts: 774
    CR is an appallingly bad Bond film, and a pathetic film alltogether.

    Craig is a horrible Bond. No words can describe how much his Bond is just wrong and bad.

    I love Brosnan as Bond.

    I love DAD, MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, DAF.

    Not sure if serious... You trolling? I know this is a thread for controversial views but wow.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    Volante wrote:
    CR is an appallingly bad Bond film, and a pathetic film alltogether.

    Craig is a horrible Bond. No words can describe how much his Bond is just wrong and bad.

    I love Brosnan as Bond.

    I love DAD, MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, DAF.

    Not sure if serious... You trolling?
    Save for loving Brosnan as Bond, and also loving DAD, MR, and YOLT, I agree with him for the most part. I didn't hate Brosnan, and I would rather watch DAD, MR or YOLT over Craig's Bond films any day.

  • edited March 2012 Posts: 1,497
    3. QOS is not in my top 10 but is surely better than CR in my opinion.

    Completely agree...
    Sandy wrote:
    Give me Octupussy and any other Bond film, I may like the other one more and think it a better film but 8 out of 10 times I'll pick Octopussy and happily watch it!

    I can also go along with this one too...
    Dr_Metz wrote:

    3. Diamonds Are Forever is one of the best Bond films. It's my personal favorite actually.

    I wholeheartedly agree
    Dr_Metz wrote:


    7. Charles Grey's Blofeld is my favorite Bond villain.

    Took the words right out of my mouth.

    While we're rolling with the Diamonds I'll raise you...

    1. Tiffany case was one classy Bond girl, one of the best. She had the most chemistry with Sean Connery.

    2. Never Say Never Again is a classic Bond film.

    3. Barbara Bach played Anya quite convincibly and was a gorgeous Bond girl.

    4. Connery does not look bored in YOLT, but does in TB.

    5. Guy Hamilton was the best and most important director of the series.
  • Posts: 562
    Volante wrote:
    CR is an appallingly bad Bond film, and a pathetic film alltogether.

    Craig is a horrible Bond. No words can describe how much his Bond is just wrong and bad.

    I love Brosnan as Bond.

    I love DAD, MR, YOLT, TMWTGG, DAF.

    Not sure if serious... You trolling? I know this is a thread for controversial views but wow.

    You'll get used to DC007's rather odd tastes soon enough. :P
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    LTK is actually one of the funnier movies of the franchise.
  • edited March 2012 Posts: 401
    JBFan626 wrote:
    5. Guy Hamilton was the best and most important director of the series.
    Terence Young was the best at directing "serious" Bond films, Guy Hamilton was the best at directing "fun" Bond films, IMO. Both were masters in their respective fields. I consider Hamilton's Live And Let Die a fluke, all his other Bond films were great. I guess you could say Guy Hamilton was more important than Terence Young, because he directed arguably the most famous and iconic Bond film of all time.

  • Posts: 562
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    I guess you could say Guy Hamilton was more important than Terence Young, because he directed arguably the most famous and iconic Bond film of all time.

    I daresay that is a fair assessment. However, I'll always prefer Young over Hamilton.

Sign In or Register to comment.