Controversial opinions about Bond films

1475476478480481705

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,786
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Connery could get away with more than some of the other actors. For instance the Tania interrogation. That slap is brutal and completely looks like it would have stung hard.
    I was watching FRWL with my girlfriend yesterday and that scene was on. She was still clearly rooting for Bond in that situation, whereas the Lazenby slap didn't get nearly as much leeway. She felt Lazenby's variation of that type of scene made him instantly unlikable. The Roger version of that type of scene in TMWTGG just barely got by with her. Probably because Roger himself, no matter what the situation was always lovable.
    Tom Mankiewicz once said in an interview that when writing for Connery, one could either have him kiss a femme fatale or stab her under the dinner table. The audience would cheer regardless. With Roger, it was more difficult, and he would look nasty killing off a female opponent.
    In today's wimpy, whining world there probably wouldn't be an intense Tania interrogation type scene in a Bond film, unless it were Judi Dench doing the questioning. I can't picture Craig or Brosnan in that scenario.
    bondjames wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
    I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just Connery's natural charm, but I've never found the scene to be particularly disturbing. I felt Peters and Connery played it lightly enough (with a bit of a wink) that it comes across playfully. In contrast, the SP seduction scene with Bellucci was more uncomfortable for me.

    I agree. I also see the Patricia Fearing scene as played lightly. He's jokingly blackmailing her. He isn't really going to get her fired over the rack machine or if she turns him down. He's playfully using his mishap with the rack as a cue to continue flirting with her. He's been directly massing passes at her his whole stay at Shrublands. She's into him anyway.
    The Bellucci seduction on the other hand I don't think works because there wasn't any flirtatious foreplay to lead up to that moment. I find the way that scene is played to be more sleazy and out out of nowhere.

    In the light of this discussion, what are the thoughts about ‘the turning of Pussy Galore’?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,500
    octofinger wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).

    Oh my - controversial indeed. What do you mean by 'sophisticated?' To me, SP looks far better on screen.

    I think @CommanderRoss nails it by saying:
    it (SPECTRE)'s more like a collection of beautiful clips then a full movie.

    Just taking the Spectre meetings in each film:

    THUNDERBALL is sleek. The design of the set and the story being told in this sequence never fails to impress and interest me. Just the way it's shot makes it seem larger than life (without being obviously grandiose). It propels the story forward and very quickly shows all the pies that this deadly organizations has its fingers in.

    SP is moody, certainly, and tries to present very similar attributes as the earlier film (that their business is international; they have deadly people on their team), but the complete package of the scene bores me as it moves at a snail’s pace. Almost as if the filmmakers fell in love with their own vision, they didn’t want to leave this place. Beyond its framing and shooting, it is pedestrian when compared to TB.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,416
    Just think if they went the Eyes Wide Shut route and wore masks during the meeting in Spectre. Wasnt that on the table at one point?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    peter wrote: »
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).

    Not all that controversial. Thunderball is better than Spectre in pretty much every conceivable way, apart from some pacing issues.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    TB may have pacing issues, but it's by far better paced than Spectre.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,416
    I watched TB last week and it was probably the first time I'd ever saw the whole bomb stealing scene from start to finish. Its very slow. Im not discrediting the work that was done, but like the Severnaya scene in GE it just grinds everything to a halt.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Roadphill wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).

    Not all that controversial. Thunderball is better than Spectre in pretty much every conceivable way, apart from some pacing issues.
    Agreed. Not controversial at all imho.
    I watched TB last week and it was probably the first time I'd ever saw the whole bomb stealing scene from start to finish. Its very slow. Im not discrediting the work that was done, but like the Severnaya scene in GE it just grinds everything to a halt.
    It's true, but I think it's still very well done. The music and photography elevate it and the whole sequence has atmosphere. However, it is definitely a bit slow.

    I can't say I find Severnaya in GE to be slow though. Any sequence that features Scorupco is fine in my book. ;)
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,416
    bondjames wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Another controversial opinion to some, and certainly not to others: TB is head and tails, infinitely, more sophisticated than SP (a film I still defend as being a beautiful mess, and I don't reserve the hate for it that others seem to have).

    Not all that controversial. Thunderball is better than Spectre in pretty much every conceivable way, apart from some pacing issues.
    Agreed. Not controversial at all imho.
    I watched TB last week and it was probably the first time I'd ever saw the whole bomb stealing scene from start to finish. Its very slow. Im not discrediting the work that was done, but like the Severnaya scene in GE it just grinds everything to a halt.
    It's true, but I think it's still very well done. The music and photography elevate it and the whole sequence has atmosphere. However, it is definitely a bit slow.

    I can't say I find Severnaya in GE to be slow though. Any sequence that features Scorupco is fine in my book. ;)

    I think its a problem only because we dont get to see peak Connery for about 20 minutes
  • Posts: 684
    I think the Severnaya sequence is one of GE's better parts. Suspenseful short film that might've been the pre-credits in an earlier entry, only positioned deeper into the run-time and woven into the whole in a way we're unused to in Bond. Just thinking of it gets me excited for the opening scenes of GE. I really enjoy that one up till Bond meets Wade.
  • Posts: 14,825
    Strog wrote: »
    I think the Severnaya sequence is one of GE's better parts. Suspenseful short film that might've been the pre-credits in an earlier entry, only positioned deeper into the run-time and woven into the whole in a way we're unused to in Bond. Just thinking of it gets me excited for the opening scenes of GE. I really enjoy that one up till Bond meets Wade.

    Not exactly controversial regarding Severnaya.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,416
    My comment didnt necessarily mean that I dislike the Severnaya scene. I actually quite enjoy it. I was comparing it with the bomb stealing scene from TB in which you have a long scene without Bond that lasts a decent part of time.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.
  • Posts: 14,825
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    I prefer the 90s vibe to the 80s one. Is it controversial?
  • Posts: 15,818
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Connery could get away with more than some of the other actors. For instance the Tania interrogation. That slap is brutal and completely looks like it would have stung hard.
    I was watching FRWL with my girlfriend yesterday and that scene was on. She was still clearly rooting for Bond in that situation, whereas the Lazenby slap didn't get nearly as much leeway. She felt Lazenby's variation of that type of scene made him instantly unlikable. The Roger version of that type of scene in TMWTGG just barely got by with her. Probably because Roger himself, no matter what the situation was always lovable.
    Tom Mankiewicz once said in an interview that when writing for Connery, one could either have him kiss a femme fatale or stab her under the dinner table. The audience would cheer regardless. With Roger, it was more difficult, and he would look nasty killing off a female opponent.
    In today's wimpy, whining world there probably wouldn't be an intense Tania interrogation type scene in a Bond film, unless it were Judi Dench doing the questioning. I can't picture Craig or Brosnan in that scenario.
    bondjames wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
    I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just Connery's natural charm, but I've never found the scene to be particularly disturbing. I felt Peters and Connery played it lightly enough (with a bit of a wink) that it comes across playfully. In contrast, the SP seduction scene with Bellucci was more uncomfortable for me.

    I agree. I also see the Patricia Fearing scene as played lightly. He's jokingly blackmailing her. He isn't really going to get her fired over the rack machine or if she turns him down. He's playfully using his mishap with the rack as a cue to continue flirting with her. He's been directly massing passes at her his whole stay at Shrublands. She's into him anyway.
    The Bellucci seduction on the other hand I don't think works because there wasn't any flirtatious foreplay to lead up to that moment. I find the way that scene is played to be more sleazy and out out of nowhere.

    In the light of this discussion, what are the thoughts about ‘the turning of Pussy Galore’?

    Pretty much the same. The line: "We must have a few fast falls together sometime" clearly sets up the barn haystack bit. Playful wrestling leading to intimacy. Bond can size up what kind of a person a woman is from their initial encounter, and goes with it. What's fun is when it doesn't work in his favor as with Fiona who remains on the side of SPECTRE.
    If Pussy Galore wasn't interested or remotely curious from his initial flirting on the plane the barn sequence wouldn't play out like it did.
    Bond meets all kinds of women throughout the franchise, and I feel Connery had the wonderful male/female chemistry. I think he probably would have had a blast with Onatopp, and probably would have had some amazing scenes with Judi Dench's M.
    I can imagine his delivery of "Now you get your clothes on, and I'll buy you an ice cream" would have been just as charming and funny as Roger's.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Connery could get away with more than some of the other actors. For instance the Tania interrogation. That slap is brutal and completely looks like it would have stung hard.
    I was watching FRWL with my girlfriend yesterday and that scene was on. She was still clearly rooting for Bond in that situation, whereas the Lazenby slap didn't get nearly as much leeway. She felt Lazenby's variation of that type of scene made him instantly unlikable. The Roger version of that type of scene in TMWTGG just barely got by with her. Probably because Roger himself, no matter what the situation was always lovable.
    Tom Mankiewicz once said in an interview that when writing for Connery, one could either have him kiss a femme fatale or stab her under the dinner table. The audience would cheer regardless. With Roger, it was more difficult, and he would look nasty killing off a female opponent.
    In today's wimpy, whining world there probably wouldn't be an intense Tania interrogation type scene in a Bond film, unless it were Judi Dench doing the questioning. I can't picture Craig or Brosnan in that scenario.
    bondjames wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    No, I just think it makes Bond look sleazy (at best), even by the standards of the time. Bond shouldn't need to take his women by force (or by blackmail). He's meant to be far too good for that.
    Perhaps it's just a matter of lazy screenwriting - why not have Bond be so charming that Fearing actually wants to get with him?
    I get what you're saying. Perhaps it's just Connery's natural charm, but I've never found the scene to be particularly disturbing. I felt Peters and Connery played it lightly enough (with a bit of a wink) that it comes across playfully. In contrast, the SP seduction scene with Bellucci was more uncomfortable for me.

    I agree. I also see the Patricia Fearing scene as played lightly. He's jokingly blackmailing her. He isn't really going to get her fired over the rack machine or if she turns him down. He's playfully using his mishap with the rack as a cue to continue flirting with her. He's been directly massing passes at her his whole stay at Shrublands. She's into him anyway.
    The Bellucci seduction on the other hand I don't think works because there wasn't any flirtatious foreplay to lead up to that moment. I find the way that scene is played to be more sleazy and out out of nowhere.

    In the light of this discussion, what are the thoughts about ‘the turning of Pussy Galore’?

    Pretty much the same. The line: "We must have a few fast falls together sometime" clearly sets up the barn haystack bit. Playful wrestling leading to intimacy. Bond can size up what kind of a person a woman is from their initial encounter, and goes with it. What's fun is when it doesn't work in his favor as with Fiona who remains on the side of SPECTRE.
    If Pussy Galore wasn't interested or remotely curious from his initial flirting on the plane the barn sequence wouldn't play out like it did.
    Bond meets all kinds of women throughout the franchise, and I feel Connery had the wonderful male/female chemistry. I think he probably would have had a blast with Onatopp, and probably would have had some amazing scenes with Judi Dench's M.
    I can imagine his delivery of "Now you get your clothes on, and I'll buy you an ice cream" would have been just as charming and funny as Roger's.

    For me this is the only time Connery's charms are a bit..... over reaching. Not that it really aches, but it just doesn't work as well as all the others. Still I don't mind it too much, I think people these days read way too much in it, and why wouldn't Pussy be allowed to test the other side a bit as well? ;-)
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    It’s even more strange when you consider that he wrote the stories for many of the Bond video games to follow. He was obviously available and eager to write for Bond.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    I prefer the 90s vibe to the 80s one. Is it controversial?

    I agree wholeheartedly!
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,111
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    It’s even more strange when you consider that he wrote the stories for many of the Bond video games to follow. He was obviously available and eager to write for Bond.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    I prefer the 90s vibe to the 80s one. Is it controversial?

    I agree wholeheartedly!

    I agree that the 90s Bonds in general are better than the 80s for one main reason: more memorable villains. Also controversial, I think that Bruce Ferstein was arguably the second best screenwriter for Bond, behind Richard Maibaum.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    It’s even more strange when you consider that he wrote the stories for many of the Bond video games to follow. He was obviously available and eager to write for Bond.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    I prefer the 90s vibe to the 80s one. Is it controversial?

    I agree wholeheartedly!

    I agree that the 90s Bonds in general are better than the 80s for one main reason: more memorable villains. Also controversial, I think that Bruce Ferstein was arguably the second best screenwriter for Bond, behind Richard Maibaum.
    +1. Thank you!
  • Posts: 15,818
    I wish Bruce Feirstein would come back to write Bond. I prefer him to Paul Haggis honestly.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    So do I. The guy knows how to balance between drama and action better than anyone post-Maibaum.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    It’s even more strange when you consider that he wrote the stories for many of the Bond video games to follow. He was obviously available and eager to write for Bond.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    I prefer the 90s vibe to the 80s one. Is it controversial?

    I agree wholeheartedly!

    I agree that the 90s Bonds in general are better than the 80s for one main reason: more memorable villains. Also controversial, I think that Bruce Ferstein was arguably the second best screenwriter for Bond, behind Richard Maibaum.

    @MaxCasino agreed!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,500
    I humbly would take the 80s over the 90s anytime.
  • Posts: 1,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I humbly would take the 80s over the 90s anytime.
    Me as well. But not humbly.
    Me 3. In particular, I'd never sacrifice a Dalton film for a Brosnan.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,416
    peter wrote: »
    I humbly would take the 80s over the 90s anytime.

    Ehh I cant. 80s are my least favorite decade
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,724
    I'd rather kill myself than choose between the 80s and 90s.

    Kill myself through an exploding bomb on top of a moving handcar.
  • Posts: 15,818
    The '80's are my second favorite decade with the '70's a close 3rd.
    I'd most certainly take the '90's over the 00's and '10's if we could have inserted CR and SF in there. There's plenty of room.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The 80s are my second least favourite decade, only bettering the 2010s.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    I'd just barely take the 80s over 90s so I could have TLD and LTK.
  • Posts: 14,825
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    It’s even more strange when you consider that he wrote the stories for many of the Bond video games to follow. He was obviously available and eager to write for Bond.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I enjoy it too.

    I must say, despite a very 90's vibe, Goldeneye has aged excellenty. For the life of me I can't imagine why EON didn't keep Bruce Ferstein(I think I spelt that correctly) around. Much better than Purvis and Wade.

    I prefer the 90s vibe to the 80s one. Is it controversial?

    I agree wholeheartedly!

    I agree that the 90s Bonds in general are better than the 80s for one main reason: more memorable villains. Also controversial, I think that Bruce Ferstein was arguably the second best screenwriter for Bond, behind Richard Maibaum.

    Apart from GE I actually don't think the 90s Bond are better overall. I just prefer the vibe and the feel of the 90s. In Bond movies and in general. I think the whole atmosphere of the 80s was detrimental to Bond movies.
  • edited November 2018 Posts: 17,280
    Not beating the 60's-80's of course, but I prefer the 90's to the 00's/10's.
Sign In or Register to comment.