›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…437438440442443…705

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,868
    I wish there were more gunbarrels like the one in CR, integrated to the PTS.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,868
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I wish there were more gunbarrels like the one in CR, integrated to the PTS.

    I like it in CR, but, like the bullet in the DAD gun barrel, I only like it as a one off. To mark a special occasion.

    I hated the bullet in DAD. I wouldn't do it all the time, but from time to time it would be nice.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,721
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    ... have at it, boys (as I never seem to have an argument on this statement with our better halves)

    Well, I don't really like arguing on the internet, even when it's just for fun.

    So I'm not going to argue, but I am going to register my strong disapproval!

    It's because you're classy @Agent_99!! and dangerous with all your riding and flying; two things that make me strap on my diapers and say my prayers -- and Dalton has definitely moved up a notch for me.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    The CR gunbarrel was awesome and totally fit the movie. But after that there should always and only have been a classic gunbarrel - a shame they skipped it for QoS and SF.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,884
    Back to the Oscars talk, I found a small quote from Adam: "..to some extent the Motion Picture Academy thought [the Bond films] were rather contrived." But they still got recognition with their nomination for TSWLM and also had very tough competition to be up against that year (Star Wars). Not that this pardons some of the other instances that they could've won, but it's still something.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,121
    peter wrote: »
    and Dalton has definitely moved up a notch for me.

    EXCELLENT. See, I don't even need to argue to make my case!
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    peter wrote: »
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    ... have at it, boys (as I never seem to have an argument on this statement with our better halves)

    Well, I don't really like arguing on the internet, even when it's just for fun.

    So I'm not going to argue, but I am going to register my strong disapproval!

    It's because you're classy @Agent_99!! and dangerous with all your riding and flying; two things that make me strap on my diapers and say my prayers -- and Dalton has definitely moved up a notch for me.

    Who has he overtaken @peter ?

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,721
    @barryt007: Dalton moves past PB.

    The last viewings of the Dalton films I found to be very enjoyable, and although he can be quite theatrical, he had laser-precision in his portrayal, and, as noted, he was dogged in his determination to “get the bad guy” whether that meant setting up “assassinations” water skiing behind planes, or jumping on top of moving vans and tanker trucks.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    peter wrote: »
    @barryt007: Dalton moves past PB.

    Nice to see your mental health improve.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,721
    Ha!! Thanks for that @Thunderfinger!
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,447
    Dalton would surpass Brosnan to me if he had done more films.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,721
    I think over time, his two films are showing a greater scope in character than anything Brosnan did in his four.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,447
    Outside of GoldenEye, his films were weak. Why they didn't bring back Campbell and the rest of the team for at least one more of his films is beyond me. That's the problem with the last 20 years of the franchise. The creative consistency is lacking. I guess they did it with Skyfall and Spectre but the latter failed on some levels. Twice EON should have brought back Campbell to do follow ups. Instead the Brosnan era had four different directors and the Craig era had three, now going on four. Gone are the days of a Glen, Hamilton, Gilbert and Young in which they kept a somewhat consistent flow.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't think they are looking for consistency. They are looking for artistic flair and distinctiveness. When it works, it really works. When it doesn't work, it's an abject failure.

    I agree with you on consistency. I think that's what some of us are hoping they get back to once this experimentation is over and done with. If that means moving on because they don't believe in it, then so be it. That's what I'd prefer.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,447
    I mean I agree that every film should be it's own. I don't want to sit down to watch a new film and it's a carbon copy of the previous one. With so many films made, they need to explore new ideas. That's why after viewing Spectre that they should not have gone that route and brought in someone fresh. Mendes didn't want to do it, but the success of Skyfall sorta forced him to. They should have seen it. I can't speak for Martin Campbell but in many eyes, he directed two of the highest rated and maybe best Bond films. I don't know why he hasn't been pursued for more outside of GE and CR. Imagine QOS without Forster. Would have it been better, who knows?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Campbell has been pursued. More than once. He will do it if they cast a new actor. Nolan will do it if they cast a new actor. It's that simple.

    Campbell doesn't want to do the second one. Only the first. I can appreciate that. It's more of a creative challenge.

    I get your point about not wanting a carbon copy. I don't think they gave us that in the 60s, 70s or 80s. The films are quite distinct despite having tonal consistency. That's why they are such great repeat watches.

    This current regime hasn't got a clue how to do formula. Either that or they couldn't care less. One gets the impression it's beneath them. They're better than the series and its cinematic history. No, they want to create art. That's why they cast Craig, why they hired P&W and why they are on the current path. Brosnan was a remnant of Cubby's time, and when his contract was up, he was gone.

    The least 'arty' films of the past 25 years, and the ones that have had the most connective tissue to the past, have been the two Campbell entries. They are workmanlike but get the job done. That's how it used to be.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,447
    bondjames wrote: »

    The least 'arty' films of the past 25 years, and the ones that have had the most connective tissue to the past, have been the two Campbell entries. They are workmanlike but get the job done. That's how it used to be.

    And that's been their downfall since Cubby passed.

    TND- Spottiswood gave us Rambo Bond. Basically a run of the mill action film suited to the late 90s.

    TWINE- Apted/P&W gave us an inconsistent drama film with not alot going for it.

    DAD- Tamahori/P&W gave us Sci-fi and RoboBond.

    CR- Great workman like effort that clicks on all cylinders.

    QOS- A missed opportunity to really follow up on CR. But the writers strike prevented what may have been much better.

    SF/SP.- Skyfall is supurb and clearly they were out of gas for Spectre.

    So 7 films that are completely inconsistent for the most part. Every thing new they tried failed in some way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I'd say the one film that really clicked (despite its flaws) outside of the two Campbell entries was SF. Says it all about their artistic efforts really. This is after the long breaks too.
  • LFSLFS
    edited March 2018 Posts: 40
    Just look at the Bond films in the last, let´s say, 30 years - overall, it´s been VERY disappointing (aside from the fact that we only got 9 films during that period, too few).

    "License to Kill", "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale" are the standouts, obviously.
    I never liked "Skyfall" (it´s just not a Bond movie), but even if you count it as a masterpiece, the bad films still outweigh the good ones.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    LFS wrote: »
    Just look at the Bond films in the last, let´s say, 30 years - overall, it´s been VERY disappointing (aside from the fact that we only got 9 films during that period, too few).

    "License to Kill", "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale" are the standouts, obviously.
    Fully agreed.
    LFS wrote: »
    I never liked "Skyfall" (it´s just not a Bond movie), but even if you count it as a masterpiece, the bad films still outweigh the good ones.
    I liked it on account of the atmosphere and aesthetics (Deakins is a genius) and the character moments (Mendes crafted them well). So I put it among the great films of the last 30 years. I see where you're coming from though because it's far from traditional. I don't think they should attempt that again.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    LFS wrote: »
    Just look at the Bond films in the last, let´s say, 30 years - overall, it´s been VERY disappointing (aside from the fact that we only got 9 films during that period, too few).

    "License to Kill", "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale" are the standouts, obviously.
    I never liked "Skyfall" (it´s just not a Bond movie), but even if you count it as a masterpiece, the bad films still outweigh the good ones.

    Welcome to the forum @LFS! I agree wholeheartedly.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    bondjames wrote: »
    This current regime hasn't got a clue how to do formula. Either that or they couldn't care less. One gets the impression it's beneath them. They're better than the series and its cinematic history. No, they want to create art. That's why they cast Craig, why they hired P&W and why they are on the current path. Brosnan was a remnant of Cubby's time, and when his contract was up, he was gone.

    You are completely right. This is the single biggest problem with the current era.
  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,372
    LFS wrote: »
    I never liked "Skyfall" (it´s just not a Bond movie), but even if you count it as a masterpiece, the bad films still outweigh the good ones.

    Never cared for SF or SP. Have seen them no more than four times each. They are among the least rewatchable Bond films in the series for me.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2018 Posts: 8,186
    I don't really like SF, but it has merits. SP is a bit like DAD in that there are so many decisions that justake you scratch your head. That whole finale is just like a scene from DAD.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I don't really like SF, but it has merits. SP is a bit like DAD in that there are so many decisions that justake you scratch your head. That whole finale is just like a scene from DAD.

    Yeah all these films are really analogous of the Brosnan era, which makes the 5th all the more exciting

    GE- CR- both clearly the best and the most “Spy”

    TND- QOS- all about the setpieces

    TWINE-SF - the kind of boring ones

    SP-DAD- way over the top
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    edited March 2018 Posts: 727
    bondjames wrote: »
    I get your point about not wanting a carbon copy. I don't think they gave us that in the 60s, 70s or 80s. The films are quite distinct despite having tonal consistency. That's why they are such great repeat watches.

    This current regime hasn't got a clue how to do formula. Either that or they couldn't care less. One gets the impression it's beneath them. They're better than the series and its cinematic history. No, they want to create art. That's why they cast Craig, why they hired P&W and why they are on the current path. Brosnan was a remnant of Cubby's time, and when his contract was up, he was gone.


    I wouldn't say they couldn't care less about the Bond formula. Spectre was quite visibly their attempt at making a formula Bond film. But Sam Mendes couldn't help but inject 'poignant' drama where it was not needed. Imagine Spectre with all the whistles taken out. All the godawful fraternal drama which was so serious that they circled back around to being campy (and Austin Powers like). Imagine Spectre without the contrived callbacks to the previous films. Madeline as just a temporal Bond girl who becomes thirsty for Bond rather than the poorly executed this-is-the-one woman. Blofeld cackling like a maniac with Christoph at his hammiest. It would be stupendously better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I get your point about not wanting a carbon copy. I don't think they gave us that in the 60s, 70s or 80s. The films are quite distinct despite having tonal consistency. That's why they are such great repeat watches.

    This current regime hasn't got a clue how to do formula. Either that or they couldn't care less. One gets the impression it's beneath them. They're better than the series and its cinematic history. No, they want to create art. That's why they cast Craig, why they hired P&W and why they are on the current path. Brosnan was a remnant of Cubby's time, and when his contract was up, he was gone.


    I wouldn't say they couldn't care less about the Bond formula. Spectre was quite visibly their attempt at making a formula Bond film. But Sam Mendes couldn't help but inject 'poignant' drama where it was not needed. Imagine Spectre with all the whistles taken out. All the godawful fraternal drama which was so serious that they circled back around to being campy (and Austin Powers like). Imagine Spectre without the contrived callbacks to the previous films. Madeline as just a temporal Bond girl who becomes thirsty for Bond rather than the poorly executed this-is-the-one woman. Blofeld cackling like a maniac with Christoph at his hammiest. It would be stupendously better.
    It would have been better without brothergate, with a tighter script and with a lighter tone certainly, but I think it would have fallen into the 'by the numbers' overly predictable TND category.

    I don't think they know how to do formula. It appears to be foreign to them. Look at the action in SP for instance. Is there really anything there which we can hold up with the great scenes this series has delivered over the past 50+ years? Even the touted Hinx fight was a rehash of FRWL/LALD/TSWLM with similar moves.

    Only Campbell has been able to deliver that properly for them.

    I don't think their heart's in it.
  • Benjamin_Weekly69Benjamin_Weekly69 London
    Posts: 727
    Which is why Mendes is a problem. I watched the whole times interview with Mendes and Craig when Spectre came out and he said he was more proud of the action in Spectre than in Skyfall. Spectre is how he wanted it. It was closer to his vision.

    My reaction was: thank god he didn't get it 'right' in Skyfall. He is clearly erroneous for Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Some of that may have just been marketing bluster though. If SP was really closer to his vision then I think he's lost it.

    SF was a Sam Mendes film - it had his DNA running through it.

    I still don't know what SP was.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    Benjamin_Weekly69 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I get your point about not wanting a carbon copy. I don't think they gave us that in the 60s, 70s or 80s. The films are quite distinct despite having tonal consistency. That's why they are such great repeat watches.

    This current regime hasn't got a clue how to do formula. Either that or they couldn't care less. One gets the impression it's beneath them. They're better than the series and its cinematic history. No, they want to create art. That's why they cast Craig, why they hired P&W and why they are on the current path. Brosnan was a remnant of Cubby's time, and when his contract was up, he was gone.


    I wouldn't say they couldn't care less about the Bond formula. Spectre was quite visibly their attempt at making a formula Bond film. But Sam Mendes couldn't help but inject 'poignant' drama where it was not needed. Imagine Spectre with all the whistles taken out. All the godawful fraternal drama which was so serious that they circled back around to being campy (and Austin Powers like). Imagine Spectre without the contrived callbacks to the previous films. Madeline as just a temporal Bond girl who becomes thirsty for Bond rather than the poorly executed this-is-the-one woman. Blofeld cackling like a maniac with Christoph at his hammiest. It would be stupendously better.
    It would have been better without brothergate, with a tighter script and with a lighter tone certainly, but I think it would have fallen into the 'by the numbers' overly predictable TND category.

    I don't think they know how to do formula. It appears to be foreign to them. Look at the action in SP for instance. Is there really anything there which we can hold up with the great scenes this series has delivered over the past 50+ years? Even the touted Hinx fight was a rehash of FRWL/LALD/TSWLM with similar moves.

    Only Campbell has been able to deliver that properly for them.

    I don't think their heart's in it.

    I'd have to agree with this I'm afraid. How else to explain the shocking script supervision on SP? And the obsession with other projects when they need to be concentrating on putting right the mistakes made with SP?

    But credit where it's due - the Hinx train fight is a lot better than the ones from LALD and TSWLM and right up there as one of the fights of the series. It is the only standout action scene though.
Sign In or Register to comment.