Controversial opinions about Bond films

1509510512514515705

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    Agreed, and I will add that Craig has kinda outlived his purpose as Bond. He doesn't fit the mould of what they were going for with SP.

    Exactly. A lot of it just doesn't suit Craig's Bond. I love Craig as Bond, but most of SP doesn't play to his talents. That phone call during the silly car chase and subsequent ejector seat is perfect for Brosnan's Bond.
  • Posts: 14,831
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    At his age?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,879
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    Agreed, and I will add that Craig has kinda outlived his purpose as Bond. He doesn't fit the mould of what they were going for with SP.

    I actually agree with you to a degree @Mendes4Lyfe. Craig's tenure has been a very mixed bag. Starts off very Fleming inspired, goes dark but retains the same characteristics. SF keeps it serious and slightly dark. But adds a little more fun. SP then goes that one step further and gets rid of nearly all the seriousness and is more akin to a Brosnan or Moore entry. It felt like too much of a jump for Craig's style of playing Bond.
    I hope this is remedied in B25.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can only assume that this poster was referring to my earlier reference to @Birdleson's post.

    So perhaps I should clarify, as that was the last comment I made after a lengthy post on what I find interesting about those Bond films l like - which is where they get the mix right in a manner that works for me. I hope my perspective in that post was clear enough to other posters. If not I can explain further.

    My last point was in relation to my view that her interest doesn't appear to be in making these kinds of films. The tone of the recent entries has been darker and more angsty in my opinion, in addition to being personal. That's not to say I've not liked some of them (CR & SF remain firmly entrenched in my top 10). There's really nothing wrong with that, as she is entitled to do whatever she wants as producer. If she chooses not to make those lighter films without a layer of emotional disquiet, then we're likely going to have to wait for a new generation of producers, whether it be Gregg or whoever, to take over an put their own stamp on things. That was my point.

    With regard to my view on P&W and formula, I see no evidence that they know how to do it well. I don't believe they have an interest in it, and when they touch it, it appears like a tack on. They seem better when they poke fun at things (the martini comment in CR, the ejector comment in SF, the exploding pen comment in SF). Once you go there, then it's difficult for me to buy it when you drop an exploding watch and ejector seat in the next film in the series. You need a reboot to re-establish that sort of concept credibly.

    Hopefully that clears things up.

    You where perfectly clear @bondjames My thoughts echo yours on this matter.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2019 Posts: 8,087
    Benny wrote: »
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    Agreed, and I will add that Craig has kinda outlived his purpose as Bond. He doesn't fit the mould of what they were going for with SP.

    I actually agree with you to a degree @Mendes4Lyfe. Craig's tenure has been a very mixed bag. Starts off very Fleming inspired, goes dark but retains the same characteristics. SF keeps it serious and slightly dark. But adds a little more fun. SP then goes that one step further and gets rid of nearly all the seriousness and is more akin to a Brosnan or Moore entry. It felt like too much of a jump for Craig's style of playing Bond.
    I hope this is remedied in B25.

    It will be, but that has its own problems. I hope they don't revert to type too much, as what was timely in 2006 - 2012 might not have the impact in 2020. Things have moved on.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can only assume that this poster was referring to my earlier reference to @Birdleson's post.

    So perhaps I should clarify, as that was the last comment I made after a lengthy post on what I find interesting about those Bond films l like - which is where they get the mix right in a manner that works for me. I hope my perspective in that post was clear enough to other posters. If not I can explain further.

    My last point was in relation to my view that her interest doesn't appear to be in making these kinds of films. The tone of the recent entries has been darker and more angsty in my opinion, in addition to being personal. That's not to say I've not liked some of them (CR & SF remain firmly entrenched in my top 10). There's really nothing wrong with that, as she is entitled to do whatever she wants as producer. If she chooses not to make those lighter films without a layer of emotional disquiet, then we're likely going to have to wait for a new generation of producers, whether it be Gregg or whoever, to take over an put their own stamp on things. That was my point.

    With regard to my view on P&W and formula, I see no evidence that they know how to do it well. I don't believe they have an interest in it, and when they touch it, it appears like a tack on. They seem better when they poke fun at things (the martini comment in CR, the ejector comment in SF, the exploding pen comment in SF). Once you go there, then it's difficult for me to buy it when you drop an exploding watch and ejector seat in the next film in the series. You need a reboot to re-establish that sort of concept credibly.

    Hopefully that clears things up.

    You where perfectly clear @bondjames My thoughts echo yours on this matter.

    Mine too.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Ludovico wrote: »
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    At his age?

    No i was talking hypothetically.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I’d be happy to keep Craig for 6-7 films like Connery and more. The issue with SP was a weaker script not Craig at all.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Mmmm. DN/ FRWL/ GF/ TB = Perfect combination of story, Fleming and Humour. Brosnan era post GE = too much overt humour.....bordering on parady. There is fine line. SP suffered from a poor script and tonal errors not too much humour.
  • Posts: 6,816
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!

    I want him to stay.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    It is the manner of the gags which is the issue. They feels ripped straight out of a moore film. Humour needs to be organic and fit in with the overall tone, not just randomly inserted for the sake of it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!
    I want him to stay.
    With the options of today’s proposed new actors around who look nothing like a professional killer and a man you’d respect for his stature alone, I want to play it safe and keep Craig for a while. Otherwise, we’ll be getting hipster actors for the roles which would be nothing but a massive dealbreaker for me.
  • Posts: 14,831
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!

    I think Bond 26 would be one too many for him. He's getting old to play Bond. That said, given the actors mentioned to succeed him, I'm glad he's making Bond 25.

    On a side note, the mere fact that he's making another Bond after the controversial SP indicates that he's far more popular than some people here credit him for.
  • Posts: 385
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.

    The sofa bit in the PTS is straight Moore, you have to admit.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131

    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!
    I want him to stay.
    With the options of today’s proposed new actors around who look nothing like a professional killer and a man you’d respect for his stature alone, I want to play it safe and keep Craig for a while. Otherwise, we’ll be getting hipster actors for the roles which would be nothing but a massive dealbreaker for me.

    Here here. +1.
  • Posts: 17,291
    The gags and one-liners of the Moore era were funny. The SP gags weren't. At all.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    The gags and one-liners of the Moore era were funny. The SP gags weren't. At all.

    I thought the Sofa gag was funny.....
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    The gags and one-liners of the Moore era were funny. The SP gags weren't. At all.

    Because the Moore gags had Moore in them. Thats a big advantage.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    The gags and one-liners of the Moore era were funny. The SP gags weren't. At all.

    Because the Moore gags had Moore in them. Thats a big advantage.

    That’s true. Bar Connery, no one can pull off the one liners or gags as well as Moore.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!

    I'd love for that to happen.
  • Posts: 17,291
    suavejmf wrote: »
    The gags and one-liners of the Moore era were funny. The SP gags weren't. At all.

    I thought the Sofa gag was funny.....

    Can se how it's funny for some, but for me it didn't work. Reason being Craig. It feels out of place for his Bond, IMO.
    The gags and one-liners of the Moore era were funny. The SP gags weren't. At all.

    Because the Moore gags had Moore in them. Thats a big advantage.

    Definitely. There's only one Roger Moore :-D
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,032
    MooreFun wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.

    The sofa bit in the PTS is straight Moore, you have to admit.
    It's more an homage to Connery Bond in You Only Live Twice, isn't it? It is to me. And pretty much the ideal for humor coming with the action, Bond moving on to further danger from there.

    It's good Bond content, period. Craig Bond doesn't need the limitations I hear being applied to him.
  • Posts: 1,883
    It will probably be hard to get away from the DB5. They've made it an even more important part of the series these days than the gunbarrel. If they really want to throw in a fun nod, put in a different Aston Martin from another film or the Lotus.

    On another note on recent developments in this thread, I truly hope we can continue the discussions on here in a way we all just recognize we're having an escape from the everyday celebrating a subject we all have a common interest in.

    I have basically gotten away from the B25 thread as it seems to attract several posters who seem to want to agitate, chase rumors and generally take up pages and pages with unsatisfying and time-wasting comments. I have respect for so many of the posters on this particular thread and look forward to moving on.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    edited February 2019 Posts: 6,730
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    It is the manner of the gags which is the issue. They feels ripped straight out of a moore film. Humour needs to be organic and fit in with the overall tone, not just randomly inserted for the sake of it.

    What is the overall tone of Spectre? And how does the film create it?

    Edit: I don't feel I'm more knowledgeable on this, just want to read your opinion.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Not at all. Humour should be organic and flow with the script. Good example is Vesper's entrance into the casino which throws off Bond's concentration when it was supposed to work in his favour.
    That just happens to be a light scene. Not humourous. Flirtatious, sure. But, that doesn't equal humour.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    peter wrote: »
    One last note before signing off:

    About 10,000 scripts are submitted to the WGA/year... that’s just in the US.

    About 800 films are produced WW/year.

    Do the math.

    Being a part of a franchise, no matter what the armchair-coach says, these writers are in a 1%, and for a reason (most likely their films have accumulated hundreds of millions and into the billions. They have talent. And they execute what is asked of them (trust me, as hard as it seems, SPectre would have been far worse as it was before P&W stepped on board. They could only salvage what was there; please remember they also wrote a more sincere ending of CR before Haggis came on board; they made sure that Vesper didn’t have a child that Bond was searching for in QOS; they massaged SF; they worked with scraps oN SP)....

    Well it i difficult for us outside the business to see what's going on, isn't it. I'd happily accept P&W are talented writers, but at the same time their (Bond)films all have a certain degree of unnatural dialogue. I know obviously nothing about earlier drafts (would be very interested in the more sincere ending of CR), and as more writers come and go there's no way for the average moviegoer to understand who wrote what. i also take it the first drafts of a script have the most outlandish ideas, and they get honed down from there. But that's a guess.

  • edited February 2019 Posts: 2,896
    FourDot wrote: »
    I don't know what's so hard to grasp about the idea that the market has changed. Of course the 60s films could be the trend setters: Broccoli and Saltzman had established their own market for a certain kind of blockbuster that wasn't just a star vehicle.
    In the late 70s that changed and ever since Bond has been trying to compete. If you want it to go back to the way it was thats nice: it'll be a niche product and it won't continue much longer as a franchise.

    So the only way forward is for the series to continue imitating other films and not try freshening its formula fresher? Perhaps Bond should gain superpowers as well, since that's where the market is.
    I don't want to "go back to the way it was," since that's the problem with many Bond films--hackish repetition of the old formula. I would just like to see a Bond film that has an excitement and freshness to it that GF and FRWL did for their first-time audiences (but not necessarily the same mix or kind of elements as in those films). That would mean not having blatant call-backs to past Bond films and not blatantly imitating popular films of the moment. Instead I'd like a better-made thriller that stands on its own merits, with more memorable characterization, sharper direction and editing, ingenious stuntwork, breathless pacing, and increased use of the imagination--whether it's employed for gadgets, surreal or macabre elements and characters, plot twists, and a general sense of surprise and delight. All of those elements were conspicuously missing from the last Bond film.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,979
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    I will never understand why people still compare SP to Moore or Brosnan. Yes, there are some lighter moments than his previous entries, but the movie still remain very much serious, dark in tone and with an imagery filled with desolation.
    +1. SP is still a Craig film even though light moments in the vein of old Bond films made their comeback and I loved it for that reason. Craig worked very well for me as a transition to the Bond of old days while not forgetting that he’s still the Daniel Craig Bond and not mimicking any of his previous incarnations.

    The mindset with MI6 Community members is that a slight bit of humour is comedy hour and it ruins the whole film. It should be a miserable, humourless, the opposite of extravagant Bond film so they’d be happy about it.

    A lot of members just want Craig to go!
    He has been a tremendous Bond!
    I'd laugh my socks off if Bond 25 is a triumph for everyone and Craig signs for Bond 26!

    Not a lot. The same 3 or 4.
Sign In or Register to comment.