Controversial opinions about Bond films

1274275277279280705

Comments

  • barryt007 wrote: »
    DAF is,as @benny says,a time capsule,especially re the Las Vegas scenes,considering most (apart from Circus Circus and maybe one or two more) have been destroyed and new casinos put up.

    This is a good way to see Las Vegas as it was in 1971.

    It is surely the best way to see Las Vegas as it was in 1971: from the comfort of your home and without the smells, the regrets, the dented bank accounts, and the nauseous mornings-after. Unless that also describes your home...
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    No need to be rude to other members, @mrkisskissbangbang.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2017 Posts: 5,131
    .
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.

    Yeah, and it's my opinion that it's contrarian bollocks.

    But your opinion is nor controversial and this is the controversial thread :-)

    I also wish that people here would debate more by reading and discussing the arguments of other members before criticizing their controversial opinions. I disagree quite often with other controversial views but can mostly understand them if they are well explained.

    I find none of the argument rings true; searching for a rationale to justify undoing one of the great set pieces in the series. The action drives the narrative, something of an anomaly but a welcome one.

    It's the first time we see Bond 'proper' and the set up is woven in a way that creates the image of a rogue, a blunt instrument (you could say a wrecking ball), a Bond with edges destined to be smoothed out, but he still embodies the tenacity of the character we're familiar with. If you counter it with the final scene at White's place you see the transition. I understand if people don't like that aspect of the narrative, those who want to see Bond constantly drinking martini's and quipping, but you have to judge to scene in context and in context it's outstanding.

    One other point is regard The whole 'a trained spy/assassin wouldn't do that' argument, which is tired and lazy and used too much on here. When one talks about grounding the films they mean emotional/narrative weight, which CR has in spades.

    Well yes I have the impression that Bond is more like a wrecking ball in the parkour chase and personally don't like this so very much. And I don't think that his behaviour is proper. M precisely mentions that it is not proper but stupid and she is actually right. (However, I wonder why her assessment does not lead to any consequences for Bond ... )

    I can understand that Bond is doing such crazy stuff if it is personal and he is driven by rage or revenge or whatever. But this is not the case here. It is a simple mission in the beginning of his career and his behaviour is completely unreasonable.

    I also don't get why the early Bond needs to have edges that have to be smoothed out. Bond is not a 16 year old teenager but is a 35 year old professional killer. He was trained to behave in a professional way.

    I don't need to watch Bond drinking all the time but from time to time Bond could do spy work in a little more subtle - let's say less explosive - way as well.

    I have never really understood nor liked the Bond becoming Bond story. Bond earns the 00 status in the PTS which is great but why does he need to transform in order to become Bond afterwards. After the PTS, he is 007, the James Bond we know. Why should he be an edgy character who needs to transform into a witty, cool and sophisticated agent? I would rather understand it the other way around. Bond becomes edgy and brutal because of his job or Vesper's death...

    Exactly right. I blindly accepted the film when I first watched it, but on subsequent rewatches, one realises how redundant, artificial and moronic it actually is. Especially considering that Fleming's CR isn't an origin story.

    And peter, I understand visual storytelling. But I've outlined my reasons for not agreeing with yourself and/or the film and no one has bothered to answer my questions/rebut my discussions rationally.

    And I don't think he is "Bond, James Bond" by the end of CR. We still have to sit through QOS to get that point. Apparently.

    DCinB called. They want their rookie agent back. Training is not yet complete.

    And again, another member here fails to distinguish my comments about the writing of Bond to Craig's portrayal. Instead, they resort to dismissive, childish gags.

    My major concerns aren't with Craig himself - it's with the writing of his James Bond in CR and QOS.

    "James Bond: James Bond is a blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department. He is quiet, hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic". Ian Fleming.

    I think the writing of Bond in CR the film adheres to this vision. The parkour sequence IMO is one of the best chase sequences in film history.

    "In his relationships with women he shows the same qualities as he does in his job, but he has a certain gentleness with them and if they get into trouble he is sometimes prepared to sacrifice his life to rescue them. But not always, and certainly not if it interferes with his job. He likes gambling and fast motor cars." Ian Fleming.

    Again, a perfect fit with CR the film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    .
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.

    Yeah, and it's my opinion that it's contrarian bollocks.

    But your opinion is nor controversial and this is the controversial thread :-)

    I also wish that people here would debate more by reading and discussing the arguments of other members before criticizing their controversial opinions. I disagree quite often with other controversial views but can mostly understand them if they are well explained.

    I find none of the argument rings true; searching for a rationale to justify undoing one of the great set pieces in the series. The action drives the narrative, something of an anomaly but a welcome one.

    It's the first time we see Bond 'proper' and the set up is woven in a way that creates the image of a rogue, a blunt instrument (you could say a wrecking ball), a Bond with edges destined to be smoothed out, but he still embodies the tenacity of the character we're familiar with. If you counter it with the final scene at White's place you see the transition. I understand if people don't like that aspect of the narrative, those who want to see Bond constantly drinking martini's and quipping, but you have to judge to scene in context and in context it's outstanding.

    One other point is regard The whole 'a trained spy/assassin wouldn't do that' argument, which is tired and lazy and used too much on here. When one talks about grounding the films they mean emotional/narrative weight, which CR has in spades.

    Well yes I have the impression that Bond is more like a wrecking ball in the parkour chase and personally don't like this so very much. And I don't think that his behaviour is proper. M precisely mentions that it is not proper but stupid and she is actually right. (However, I wonder why her assessment does not lead to any consequences for Bond ... )

    I can understand that Bond is doing such crazy stuff if it is personal and he is driven by rage or revenge or whatever. But this is not the case here. It is a simple mission in the beginning of his career and his behaviour is completely unreasonable.

    I also don't get why the early Bond needs to have edges that have to be smoothed out. Bond is not a 16 year old teenager but is a 35 year old professional killer. He was trained to behave in a professional way.

    I don't need to watch Bond drinking all the time but from time to time Bond could do spy work in a little more subtle - let's say less explosive - way as well.

    I have never really understood nor liked the Bond becoming Bond story. Bond earns the 00 status in the PTS which is great but why does he need to transform in order to become Bond afterwards. After the PTS, he is 007, the James Bond we know. Why should he be an edgy character who needs to transform into a witty, cool and sophisticated agent? I would rather understand it the other way around. Bond becomes edgy and brutal because of his job or Vesper's death...

    Exactly right. I blindly accepted the film when I first watched it, but on subsequent rewatches, one realises how redundant, artificial and moronic it actually is. Especially considering that Fleming's CR isn't an origin story.

    And peter, I understand visual storytelling. But I've outlined my reasons for not agreeing with yourself and/or the film and no one has bothered to answer my questions/rebut my discussions rationally.

    And I don't think he is "Bond, James Bond" by the end of CR. We still have to sit through QOS to get that point. Apparently.

    DCinB called. They want their rookie agent back. Training is not yet complete.

    And again, another member here fails to distinguish my comments about the writing of Bond to Craig's portrayal. Instead, they resort to dismissive, childish gags.

    My major concerns aren't with Craig himself - it's with the writing of his James Bond in CR and QOS.

    ... and SF and SP. Cool.



    Now you're putting words in my mouth. I love SF, and one of the reasons being that the writing of Craig's Bond is on point.
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Every Bond actor, save for mighty Sean, has his detractors. If he doesn't like Craig and he backs it up with arguments he doesn't need to be looked down upon.

    Still waiting on the actual argument. Calling CR moronic doesn't really fly.


    I've outlined my reasons for not liking CR numerous times here. Look it up if you're that bothered by it. I'm not wasting anymore time on that here. Benny's right. We're all sounding like broken records.

    Though perhaps you not understanding where I sit with CR has nothing to do with the fact that I've outlined it. It's just you don't have the capacity to understand it - which would explain why you blindly buy into CR.

    I understand fine, I just don't buy it. It was @GBF making the points, with you chipping in with a bit of back up vitriol. Most of it reads as deliberate subterfuge to mask a wider dislike, because the arguments themselves suggest you've overreached yourselves with this one. Too much incoherent scratching around for evidence to stack up the point, when in reality it just boils down to the fact some of you retrospectively hate the concept of rookie Bond. It smacks of those kids who ditch a band as soon as everyone else buys into them.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    .
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.

    Yeah, and it's my opinion that it's contrarian bollocks.

    But your opinion is nor controversial and this is the controversial thread :-)

    I also wish that people here would debate more by reading and discussing the arguments of other members before criticizing their controversial opinions. I disagree quite often with other controversial views but can mostly understand them if they are well explained.

    I find none of the argument rings true; searching for a rationale to justify undoing one of the great set pieces in the series. The action drives the narrative, something of an anomaly but a welcome one.

    It's the first time we see Bond 'proper' and the set up is woven in a way that creates the image of a rogue, a blunt instrument (you could say a wrecking ball), a Bond with edges destined to be smoothed out, but he still embodies the tenacity of the character we're familiar with. If you counter it with the final scene at White's place you see the transition. I understand if people don't like that aspect of the narrative, those who want to see Bond constantly drinking martini's and quipping, but you have to judge to scene in context and in context it's outstanding.

    One other point is regard The whole 'a trained spy/assassin wouldn't do that' argument, which is tired and lazy and used too much on here. When one talks about grounding the films they mean emotional/narrative weight, which CR has in spades.

    Well yes I have the impression that Bond is more like a wrecking ball in the parkour chase and personally don't like this so very much. And I don't think that his behaviour is proper. M precisely mentions that it is not proper but stupid and she is actually right. (However, I wonder why her assessment does not lead to any consequences for Bond ... )

    I can understand that Bond is doing such crazy stuff if it is personal and he is driven by rage or revenge or whatever. But this is not the case here. It is a simple mission in the beginning of his career and his behaviour is completely unreasonable.

    I also don't get why the early Bond needs to have edges that have to be smoothed out. Bond is not a 16 year old teenager but is a 35 year old professional killer. He was trained to behave in a professional way.

    I don't need to watch Bond drinking all the time but from time to time Bond could do spy work in a little more subtle - let's say less explosive - way as well.

    I have never really understood nor liked the Bond becoming Bond story. Bond earns the 00 status in the PTS which is great but why does he need to transform in order to become Bond afterwards. After the PTS, he is 007, the James Bond we know. Why should he be an edgy character who needs to transform into a witty, cool and sophisticated agent? I would rather understand it the other way around. Bond becomes edgy and brutal because of his job or Vesper's death...

    Exactly right. I blindly accepted the film when I first watched it, but on subsequent rewatches, one realises how redundant, artificial and moronic it actually is. Especially considering that Fleming's CR isn't an origin story.

    And peter, I understand visual storytelling. But I've outlined my reasons for not agreeing with yourself and/or the film and no one has bothered to answer my questions/rebut my discussions rationally.

    And I don't think he is "Bond, James Bond" by the end of CR. We still have to sit through QOS to get that point. Apparently.

    DCinB called. They want their rookie agent back. Training is not yet complete.

    And again, another member here fails to distinguish my comments about the writing of Bond to Craig's portrayal. Instead, they resort to dismissive, childish gags.

    My major concerns aren't with Craig himself - it's with the writing of his James Bond in CR and QOS.

    ... and SF and SP. Cool.



    Now you're putting words in my mouth. I love SF, and one of the reasons being that the writing of Craig's Bond is on point.
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Every Bond actor, save for mighty Sean, has his detractors. If he doesn't like Craig and he backs it up with arguments he doesn't need to be looked down upon.

    Still waiting on the actual argument. Calling CR moronic doesn't really fly.


    I've outlined my reasons for not liking CR numerous times here. Look it up if you're that bothered by it. I'm not wasting anymore time on that here. Benny's right. We're all sounding like broken records.

    Though perhaps you not understanding where I sit with CR has nothing to do with the fact that I've outlined it. It's just you don't have the capacity to understand it - which would explain why you blindly buy into CR.

    I understand fine, I just don't buy it. It was @GBF making the points, with you chipping in with a bit of back up vitriol. Most of it reads as deliberate subterfuge to mask a wider dislike, because the arguments themselves suggest you've overreached yourselves with this one. Too much incoherent scratching around for evidence to stack up the point, when in reality it just boils down to the fact some of you retrospectively hate the concept of rookie Bond. It smacks of those kids who ditch a band as soon as everyone else buys into them.

    Well I mentioned a few arguments why I don't like the parkour scene as much as I used to and I even mentioned the positive elements (cinematography, stunt work). I also mentioned that I am not a big fan of the Bond becoming Bond concept since it just went on too long. I like the idea of Bond earning the 00 status in the PTS and I would have liked to see a rookie Bond afterwards. But FOR MY PERSONAL TASTE it is just a bit too edgy and ruthless in the first hour of CR. Dalton has edgy and ruthless moments as well in the first half of TLD but I find it was a bit more balanced showing a bit more variety in his characterisation of Bond. As I said I like CR from train sequnece onwards very much. However, it is you who simply does not accept any argument against CR.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    “Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likable or admirable. He is a Secret Service Agent. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent. He enjoys the fight- he also enjoys the prizes. In fiction people used to have blood in their veins. Nowadays they have pond water. My books are just out of step. But then so are all the people who read them. Bond’s detached; he’s disengaged. But he’s a believable man – around whom I try to weave a great web of excitement and fantasy. In that, at least, we have very little in common. ” Ian Fleming.

    I fail to see how CR 2006 doesn't reflect all this perfectly.

    Bond IS edgy and ruthless.

    "The simple fact is that, like all fictional heroes who find a tremendous popular acceptance, Bond must reflect his own time. We live in a violent era, perhaps the most violent man has known. In our last War, thirty million people were killed. Of these, some six million were simply slaughtered, and most brutally. I hear it said that I invent fiendish cruelties and tortures to which Bond is subjected. But no one who knows, as I know, the things that were done to captured secret agents in the last War says this. No one says it who knows what went on in Algeria". Ian Fleming.

  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    .
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    This will be very controversial, but after watching Casino Royale yesterday I must say that

    I don't like the parkour chase so very much anymore.

    I remember that I quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it but meanwhile I find it a bit too excessive as if it was a relict of the Brosnan era. There is amazing stunt work and great cinematography but I find it goes too far into superhero territory... I mean no real man, even the very best spy would risk his life in such a way, as well as the life of the person he actually wants to interrogate and the life of all the many people working on this construction site. I mean a professional killer would simply not do that. He would not cause any attention. And actually Bond was just lucky not to be shot by Molaka.

    Of course chases like this have happened before in the franchise but then it was usually not taken so very seriously and the scenes were rather lighthearted. Here, however, the tone is really serious and the scenes are brutal and Bond feels more like Rambo or the Terminator.

    I further think that the chase sequence is a big missed opportunity. One could have used it to introduce us to Molaka, as a great main henchman. There has never been such a fast runner in the Bond franchise. Why not let Molaka escape and give him another scene (eg. at Miami airport). Unfortunately, we get so many minor villains in CR who are only there for one scene and are always killed by Bond. It would have also been nice to show that Bond is not always successfull. This makes the action much less predictable.

    Another issue I have is that Bond is simply crossing a line by storming an embassy. I mean seriously? Can anyone imagine to what a diplomatic crisis this would have led? Even though Bond is not experienced and has just earned the 00 status, this can hardly be justified by anything.

    Finally I find that the parkour chase and the embassy scene are not motivated very well. I mean OK, unfortunately Molaka suddenly knows that he is observed and runs away. So what? Try to follow him and if this is not possible let him escape and get him the next time. He is on an island and it won't be so easy for him escape from there.

    I know it is very controversial but it is my honest opinion :-)

    Exactly right! If the film is inviting us to take it seriously, it needs the substance to back it up. It's a contrived sequence.

    It's not a controversial opinion in my view. Just a well informed one. :)

    Contrarian bollocks.

    It's not bollocks because you disagree with it, after all this is a controversial opinion thread.

    People should learn to live with the fact that opinions can differ.

    Yeah, and it's my opinion that it's contrarian bollocks.

    But your opinion is nor controversial and this is the controversial thread :-)

    I also wish that people here would debate more by reading and discussing the arguments of other members before criticizing their controversial opinions. I disagree quite often with other controversial views but can mostly understand them if they are well explained.

    I find none of the argument rings true; searching for a rationale to justify undoing one of the great set pieces in the series. The action drives the narrative, something of an anomaly but a welcome one.

    It's the first time we see Bond 'proper' and the set up is woven in a way that creates the image of a rogue, a blunt instrument (you could say a wrecking ball), a Bond with edges destined to be smoothed out, but he still embodies the tenacity of the character we're familiar with. If you counter it with the final scene at White's place you see the transition. I understand if people don't like that aspect of the narrative, those who want to see Bond constantly drinking martini's and quipping, but you have to judge to scene in context and in context it's outstanding.

    One other point is regard The whole 'a trained spy/assassin wouldn't do that' argument, which is tired and lazy and used too much on here. When one talks about grounding the films they mean emotional/narrative weight, which CR has in spades.

    Well yes I have the impression that Bond is more like a wrecking ball in the parkour chase and personally don't like this so very much. And I don't think that his behaviour is proper. M precisely mentions that it is not proper but stupid and she is actually right. (However, I wonder why her assessment does not lead to any consequences for Bond ... )

    I can understand that Bond is doing such crazy stuff if it is personal and he is driven by rage or revenge or whatever. But this is not the case here. It is a simple mission in the beginning of his career and his behaviour is completely unreasonable.

    I also don't get why the early Bond needs to have edges that have to be smoothed out. Bond is not a 16 year old teenager but is a 35 year old professional killer. He was trained to behave in a professional way.

    I don't need to watch Bond drinking all the time but from time to time Bond could do spy work in a little more subtle - let's say less explosive - way as well.

    I have never really understood nor liked the Bond becoming Bond story. Bond earns the 00 status in the PTS which is great but why does he need to transform in order to become Bond afterwards. After the PTS, he is 007, the James Bond we know. Why should he be an edgy character who needs to transform into a witty, cool and sophisticated agent? I would rather understand it the other way around. Bond becomes edgy and brutal because of his job or Vesper's death...

    Exactly right. I blindly accepted the film when I first watched it, but on subsequent rewatches, one realises how redundant, artificial and moronic it actually is. Especially considering that Fleming's CR isn't an origin story.

    And peter, I understand visual storytelling. But I've outlined my reasons for not agreeing with yourself and/or the film and no one has bothered to answer my questions/rebut my discussions rationally.

    And I don't think he is "Bond, James Bond" by the end of CR. We still have to sit through QOS to get that point. Apparently.

    DCinB called. They want their rookie agent back. Training is not yet complete.

    And again, another member here fails to distinguish my comments about the writing of Bond to Craig's portrayal. Instead, they resort to dismissive, childish gags.

    My major concerns aren't with Craig himself - it's with the writing of his James Bond in CR and QOS.

    ... and SF and SP. Cool.



    Now you're putting words in my mouth. I love SF, and one of the reasons being that the writing of Craig's Bond is on point.
    RC7 wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Every Bond actor, save for mighty Sean, has his detractors. If he doesn't like Craig and he backs it up with arguments he doesn't need to be looked down upon.

    Still waiting on the actual argument. Calling CR moronic doesn't really fly.


    I've outlined my reasons for not liking CR numerous times here. Look it up if you're that bothered by it. I'm not wasting anymore time on that here. Benny's right. We're all sounding like broken records.

    Though perhaps you not understanding where I sit with CR has nothing to do with the fact that I've outlined it. It's just you don't have the capacity to understand it - which would explain why you blindly buy into CR.

    I understand fine, I just don't buy it. It was @GBF making the points, with you chipping in with a bit of back up vitriol. Most of it reads as deliberate subterfuge to mask a wider dislike, because the arguments themselves suggest you've overreached yourselves with this one. Too much incoherent scratching around for evidence to stack up the point, when in reality it just boils down to the fact some of you retrospectively hate the concept of rookie Bond. It smacks of those kids who ditch a band as soon as everyone else buys into them.

    Well I mentioned a few arguments why I don't like the parkour scene as much as I used to and I even mentioned the positive elements (cinematography, stunt work). I also mentioned that I am not a big fan of the Bond becoming Bond concept since it just went on too long. I like the idea of Bond earning the 00 status in the PTS and I would have liked to see a rookie Bond afterwards. But FOR MY PERSONAL TASTE it is just a bit too edgy and ruthless in the first hour of CR. Dalton has edgy and ruthless moments as well in the first half of TLD but I find it was a bit more balanced showing a bit more variety in his characterisation of Bond. As I said I like CR from train sequnece onwards very much. However, it is you who simply does not accept any argument against CR.

    I certainly accept arguments against CR, I just don't accept that it's artificial and moronic in concept. It's a film Bond fans should be proud of and should be defended imo. I'm not the guardian of opinion, you can deconstruct it or slam it all you want and I'll defend it if I feel like the arguments are transparent. I feel much the same way with GF. Weirdly maligned amongst certain fans.

    For the record, my comment about masking a wider dislike was not aimed at you personally. Sure you have your reasons, however odd I find them.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    That's all fine, suavejmf, but those quotes aren't exclusive to CR. They can be applied to any Bond film.

    Check out my above repost and it might give you some answers. I believe we posted at around the same time and might have been missed.

    True. But IMO they apply even more to CR. The loss of Vesper, the brutal more emotional Craig, the torture scene, etc etc. After DAD it was such a breath of fresh air. But I'm not going to criticise your opinions of a rookie Bond, thats your opinion.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,189
    suavejmf wrote: »
    “Bond is not a hero, nor is he depicted as being very likable or admirable. He is a Secret Service Agent. He’s not a bad man, but he is ruthless and self-indulgent. He enjoys the fight- he also enjoys the prizes. In fiction people used to have blood in their veins. Nowadays they have pond water. My books are just out of step. But then so are all the people who read them. Bond’s detached; he’s disengaged. But he’s a believable man – around whom I try to weave a great web of excitement and fantasy. In that, at least, we have very little in common. ” Ian Fleming.

    I fail to see how CR 2006 doesn't reflect all this perfectly.


    Great quote. Self-indulgent is Bond down to a tee. I do think though that, while Bond may not be likeable as such, he is still portrayed as admirable. We are on his side and want him to succeed. I get the sense that although Fleming himself never intended Bond to be likeable the public liked him anyway and maybe saw him as more heroric than he actually was.

    Incidentally, I know someone online who disagrees with Fleming and finds the original character very likeable.

    Plain is how I'd describe Fleming's Bond, actually quite bland. I find it interesting how several of the novels feature long sections without Bond even there.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Patriotism for a Brit adds to the iconic nature of the character. Fleming was a staunch patriarch.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,722
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Patriotism for a Brit adds to the iconic nature of the character. Fleming was a staunch patriarch.
    May I assume you mean patriot, not patriarch? At least I hope so.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Yes I did. Bloody predictive text.....i didn't even notice.
  • Posts: 226
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    In my opinion CR tops during the actual going-ons around the casino. From that fantastic train conversation to Le Chiffre's execution.

    The third act in Italy has a nice glamourous touch to it, which I always appreciate. Especially Como looks like a spot where I imagine Fleming would feel at home.

    The first act is a bit rough around the edges and it doesn't feel very Bondian to me. It misses a certain classiness. CR hits a fine top 10 spot but I'd say it would end up higher without the first part.

    I'm a big fan but I do agree the first act isn't great. I like the chase but the stuff in the Caribbean and Miami drags.

  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    CountJohn wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    In my opinion CR tops during the actual going-ons around the casino. From that fantastic train conversation to Le Chiffre's execution.

    The third act in Italy has a nice glamourous touch to it, which I always appreciate. Especially Como looks like a spot where I imagine Fleming would feel at home.

    The first act is a bit rough around the edges and it doesn't feel very Bondian to me. It misses a certain classiness. CR hits a fine top 10 spot but I'd say it would end up higher without the first part.

    I'm a big fan but I do agree the first act isn't great. I like the chase but the stuff in the Caribbean and Miami drags.
    I like the first act of CR. The parkour chase and the airport sequence are two of the finest action set pieces in the Bond series. And I've never minded the stuff in between either, I like how Craig's new Bond is set up in the beginning moments and how everything feels new from the get-go. The second act is flawless though. Pure Bond and pure Fleming and about as good as Bond films can get. By the time of Bond's torture the film is relentlessly exciting and engaging.

    Where CR stumbles a bit for me personally is in its third act. Don't get me wrong, Bond and Vesper's relationship is wonderfully developed and the tragic ending is effective, but the film's pacing grinds almost to a halt and loses all the momentum it's built up to that point.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Where CR stumbles a bit for me personally is in its third act. Don't get me wrong, Bond and Vesper's relationship is wonderfully developed and the tragic ending is effective, but the film's pacing grinds almost to a halt and loses all the momentum it's built up to that point.
    I can agree with this. I do lose interest every time after ball beater concludes. It was fine in the theatre the first time out but since I know what's going to happen, the romance and Vesper death isn't all that interesting for me these days, despite the upbeat 'Bond, James Bond' Lake Como ending.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I dunno when I watch CR I think the pacing is perfect
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Oooouuu I've really never seen someone who hates CR so much
  • I do think I might steal that opening line for every time I quote somebody else's post from here on out:

    "If there was one post I'd disagree with the most, it would be this one."
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,108
    I like the latest Bond film and I'm looking forward to the next one.

    I know, I know, I've been like this for a long time.
    5189_l.jpg
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Thats the beauty of being a Bond fan. Some people love and dislike each film in equal measure.

    I personally believe that CR is almost above reproach. It is the following films where the cracks have appeared in Craigs tenure.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Another(possibly not that controversial) I think the series works best when there are regular shifts in tone.

    I firmly believe that two or three films in a row that demonstrate the same tone is too much. If you look at the Connery or even Moore era's, they ran the gamut of every type of Bond film.

    I'l give some examples

    FRWL-GF
    YOLT-OHMSS
    TMWGG-TSWLM
    MR-FYEO

    And these are all featuring the same actor in each shift, I think when we can go fun and spectacular to serious in a heartbeat, that is Bond. Too much of either is a bad thing.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    'CR is shit', translated = 'Look at me, I'm different'.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Another(possibly not that controversial) I think the series works best when there are regular shifts in tone.

    I firmly believe that two or three films in a row that demonstrate the same tone is too much. If you look at the Connery or even Moore era's, they ran the gamut of every type of Bond film.

    I'l give some examples

    FRWL-GF
    YOLT-OHMSS
    TMWGG-TSWLM
    MR-FYEO

    And these are all featuring the same actor in each shift, I think when we can go fun and spectacular to serious in a heartbeat, that is Bond. Too much of either is a bad thing.

    That has probably much to do with a shift towards another director....
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    RC7 wrote: »
    'CR is shit', translated = 'Look at me, I'm different'.

    Well people might have different tastes. I would never say CR is shit or a bad Bond film but I like it less than other members here. I find it quite boring if everyone has the same opinion about a certain Bond film. I would even say that there is no perfect Bond film and think it is interesting to discuss the positive and negative elements in all theses films...

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    GBF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    'CR is shit', translated = 'Look at me, I'm different'.

    Well people might have different tastes. I would never say CR is shit or a bad Bond film but I like it less than other members here. I find it quite boring if everyone has the same opinion about a certain Bond film. I would even say that there is no perfect Bond film and think it is interesting to discuss the positive and negative elements in all theses films...

    I agree, some people have poor taste.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    RC7 wrote: »
    'CR is shit', translated = 'Look at me, I'm different'.

    That's a terribly narrow-minded approach, especially when I have given ample reasons behind why I don't like it. Perhaps you're in the same level as JamesBondKenya at school?
    Criticizing a long standing member? Rooky mistake.
    ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    'CR is shit', translated = 'Look at me, I'm different'.

    That's a terribly narrow-minded approach, especially when I have given ample reasons behind why I don't like it. Perhaps you're in the same level as JamesBondKenya at school?

    Your arguments are largely platitudinous. One can find fault with CR, the way one can find fault with any film, but your exercise in relentless deconstruction is as transparent as it is silly. There are no doubt points that you've raised that I can completely understand, but most are buried under the vitriol and grandstanding.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @MrKissKissBangBang, I recently viewed CR again. Further to a previous discussion we had on the Madagascar sequence, there are clearly drywall studs visible in the wall because it hasn't been painted. This is how Bond knew where to smash through, Hulk style. I still don't see the problem with Mollaka not shooting Bond (which you keep mentioning). He clearly tried to do it when he was in the bulldozer. When he couldn't hit him, he decided to go 'up', thinking he could get away from him that way, being a parkour expert. Little did he know that Bond would improvise and use his surroundings to catch up with him. He shot the two soldiers because they were in his line of sight as he was climbing and there was an imminent threat as they were armed. Bond was not.

    Overall, I can't see the reason to criticize this sequence so heavily, especially since it's so tension filled. The only part that seems blatantly OTT is when Bond broke into the Embassy, and especially his move at the end which could have backfired.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2017 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    'CR is shit', translated = 'Look at me, I'm different'.

    That's a terribly narrow-minded approach, especially when I have given ample reasons behind why I don't like it. Perhaps you're in the same level as JamesBondKenya at school?
    Criticizing a long standing member? Rooky mistake.
    ;)

    Rookie.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Overall, I can't see the reason to criticize this sequence so heavily, especially since it's so tension filled.

    This is sort of the point really. If we're to view every single sequence through a magnifying glass, where do we end up? If a sequence errs on the side of boredom, your mind wanders, but even KKBB admitted that it was only once he'd 'seen the light' that he'd retrospectively decided to trash it. The whole sequence is perfect action filmmaking; great pace, choreography, cinematography, sound design, score, acting... and unlike most action scenes it doesn't exist for the sake of it, it's setting up and pushing the narrative forward.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    bondjames wrote: »
    Overall, I can't see the reason to criticize this sequence so heavily, especially since it's so tension filled.

    This is sort of the point really. If we're to view every single sequence through a magnifying glass, where do we end up? If a sequence errs on the side of boredom, your mind wanders, but even KKBB admitted that it was only once he'd 'seen the light' that he'd retrospectively decided to trash it. The whole sequence is perfect action filmmaking; great pace, choreography, cinematography, sound design, score, acting... and unlike most action scenes it doesn't exist for the sake of it, it's setting up and pushing the narrative forward. [/quote]

    That is fine and I appreciate your view. Just respect that other members don't like it as much as you do. I mean most action sequences in the franchise are great from a purely technical point of view. But that does not mean that everyone has to like the respective concept. There are quite many people who don't like the tank chase in GE or the volcano battle in YOLT, even though these sequences are certainly made very well and loved by the majority of Bond fans.
Sign In or Register to comment.