Controversial opinions about Bond films

1544545547549550705

Comments

  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    What exactly is wrong with Carver agsin? He's literally supposed to be an obnoxious and smart mouthed Media giant who lets his media power get to his head and uses various henchmen to do his dirty work cause he's a coward. It's literally just Drax if you take away what was basically the Space Hitler element so to speak.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Carver is obnoxious, and not in a way that’s fun to watch.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 8,700
    Carver is meant to be the caricature of a media mogul. Just look at him throwing around jargon and hacking headlines into his laptop (there weren't any tablets in 1997) with one hand. This is so ridiculous, it must be deliberate - like it or not. And of course, much of that applies to almost (?) every Bond villain.

    One thing I have always thought since first seeing TND (in the first days of its theatrical release in Germany): Take away the "ham" and caricature, and you have the Bond villain with probably the most likely and most logical motive of them all. No increasing the value of one's own gold by nuking much of the rest (I'm sure Goldfinger would have quickly realized that the rest of the world wouldn't appreciate that tacitly). No extorting of mere ransom money by threatening to ignite a nuke. No nuking that might render one's own country uninhabitable for ages. No attempts to create a new master race under the sea, or in space. No diamond-studded satellites, etc. etc.

    But a clear-cut plan, whether displayed here realistically or not, to engage two major powers (OK, one's a pitiful little island according to some) in a war for the sole purpose of appropriating world's largest media market, i.e. for profit and power. It's happened before, and it might happen again. Carver is really William Randolph Hearst 2.0, with some Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch thrown in. Remember the Maine!
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    On the subject of TSWLM, Stromberg is one of the series' better villains. Not top 3, but definitely somewhere in my top 10.

    I do enjoy Stromberg's villainy as well. He a pretty good Blofeld proxy. In fact I would rate him over several official Blofelds.
  • Posts: 12,273
    royale65 wrote: »
    On the subject of TSWLM, Stromberg is one of the series' better villains. Not top 3, but definitely somewhere in my top 10.

    I do enjoy Stromberg's villainy as well. He a pretty good Blofeld proxy. In fact I would rate him over several official Blofelds.

    Stromberg is a decent, underappreciated villain. I’d put him above the DAF, FYEO, and SP Blofelds. Roughly tied with YOLT Blofeld. Definitely prefer the FRWL/TB and OHMSS Blofelds though.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,700
    royale65 wrote: »
    On the subject of TSWLM, Stromberg is one of the series' better villains. Not top 3, but definitely somewhere in my top 10.

    I do enjoy Stromberg's villainy as well. He a pretty good Blofeld proxy. In fact I would rate him over several official Blofelds.
    I generally like Curd Jürgens (he Anglicized the spelling of his first name to Curt to avoid looking like cottage cheese) in other roles he played, but as Stromberg I find him just bland. His character is lacking the wit of Drax and the mania of Goldfinger. As for blandness, I'd put him about on the same level as the TB Largo (the NSNA Largo played by Brandauer is infinitely more interesting, IMO). Basically boring. It has taken me decades to discover his reluctance to shaking hands is due to having "webbed" hands. What good is a stand-out physical feature for a Bond villain if most people don't even recognise it? This assessment, along with the inevitable Marvin Hamlisch/John Barry comparison, is among the things that keep tempting me to say that Moonraker is the better film, and certainly less dated, than TSWLM, The cheese factor (Jaws!) is about identical, and the so-called Bond girls both play at cardboard-cutout levels, but MR, in spite of the silly elements (Bondola, double-taking pigeon etc.) is more fun, IMO.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    On the subject of TSWLM, Stromberg is one of the series' better villains. Not top 3, but definitely somewhere in my top 10.

    I do enjoy Stromberg's villainy as well. He a pretty good Blofeld proxy. In fact I would rate him over several official Blofelds.
    I generally like Curd Jürgens (he Anglicized the spelling of his first name to Curt to avoid looking like cottage cheese) in other roles he played, but as Stromberg I find him just bland. His character is lacking the wit of Drax and the mania of Goldfinger. As for blandness, I'd put him about on the same level as the TB Largo (the NSNA Largo played by Brandauer is infinitely more interesting, IMO). Basically boring. It has taken me decades to discover his reluctance to shaking hands is due to having "webbed" hands. What good is a stand-out physical feature for a Bond villain if most people don't even recognise it? This assessment, along with the inevitable Marvin Hamlisch/John Barry comparison, is among the things that keep tempting me to say that Moonraker is the better film, and certainly less dated, than TSWLM, The cheese factor (Jaws!) is about identical, and the so-called Bond girls both play at cardboard-cutout levels, but MR, in spite of the silly elements (Bondola, double-taking pigeon etc.) is more fun, IMO.

    Agree with everything except your comments regarding Largo. I've always found Largo to be menacing and far superior to Goldfinger, IMO. The repartee between Bond and Largo in Thunderball is apart of what makes the film brilliant.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    What exactly is wrong with Carver agsin? He's literally supposed to be an obnoxious and smart mouthed Media giant who lets his media power get to his head and uses various henchmen to do his dirty work cause he's a coward. It's literally just Drax if you take away what was basically the Space Hitler element so to speak.

    Carver is a wimp and the performance is far too comic and camp....it’s more Austin Powers than Bond.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Austin Powers like isn't how I'd describe him. Koskov is closer to that. Though Koskov is nowhere near as good as Dr. Evil or Carver imo.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Austin Powers like isn't how I'd describe him. Koskov is closer to that. Though Koskov is nowhere near as good as Dr. Evil or Carver imo.

    I like Koskov.....he's a devious snake pretending to be a muppet. Whereas, Carver is just an example of 'hammy acting' and a 'comic character'.

    The Living Daylights characters are also inspired by Fleming. In the short story that inspired the film, Koskov was instead known only as "272", and was legitimately defecting from the Soviet Union, whereas Kara Milovy's inspiration, Trigger, was the main antagonist. This was changed for the film.

    Unfortunately, Carver has nothing in common with Fleming and is a poor villain in the cannon IMO.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Who cares if he has nothing in common with Fleming? The movies haven't directly followed Fleming's stories for years. And Koskov freaking sucks, he's constantly overanimated, Annoying, is a wimp, ruins any scene he's a part of and makes a mockery out of the whole movie, also the whole plot is ruined when you realize Bond is after him. Yes Bond is after some obnoxious idiot who is somehow a Russian General (I guess Russia really had low standards back then) and does nothing but shout stupid stuff such as "I TOLD YOU, I TOLD YOU!!" And people call Carver annoying? Get out of here.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Who cares if he has nothing in common with Fleming? The movies haven't directly followed Fleming's stories for years. And Koskov freaking sucks, he's constantly overanimated, Annoying, is a wimp, ruins any scene he's a part of and makes a mockery out of the whole movie, also the whole plot is ruined when you realize Bond is after him. Yes Bond is after some obnoxious idiot who is somehow a Russian General (I guess Russia really had low standards back then) and does nothing but shout stupid stuff such as "I TOLD YOU, I TOLD YOU!!" And people call Carver annoying? Get out of here.

    I care. Koskov is pretending to be a pantomime wimp. Carver is a pantomime wimp who makes a mockery of the movie. The films have followed Fleming recently....the last time was in 2006 with CR.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    Yeah and look how well the Films have been since they "Started Following Fleming. At best they're good action movies that are enjoyable but barely have any Bond flavor and aren't really rewatchable like previous entries (Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace). At Worst they're terrible Action movies full of bad writing, melodrama, Awful pacing, Terrible musical scores, Bad plot twists, scenes added for shock and a bunch of fanservice to win fans over and only get worse and worse with each and every rewatch (Skyfall and Spectre). Also Koskov doesn't pretend to be one, he is one, name me 1 moment where he shows he's tough? Cause I somehow missed it in the 6 or 7 times I've seen TLD. Carver doesn't make a mockery of anything honestly, can you point me to some scenes or moments where he does this?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Yeah and look how well the Films have been since they "Started Following Fleming. At best they're good action movies that are enjoyable but barely have any Bond flavor and aren't really rewatchable like previous entries (Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace). At Worst they're terrible Action movies full of bad writing, melodrama, Awful pacing, Terrible musical scores, Bad plot twists, scenes added for shock and a bunch of fanservice to win fans over and only get worse and worse with each and every rewatch (Skyfall and Spectre). Also Koskov doesn't pretend to be one, he is one, name me 1 moment where he shows he's tough? Cause I somehow missed it in the 6 or 7 times I've seen TLD. Carver doesn't make a mockery of anything honestly, can you point me to some scenes or moments where he does this?

    I said the films followed Fleming in 2006 with CR which was brilliant. Have you read the novels???? The main issue with SPECTRE particularly was that they went totally against Fleming!l Skyfall and SPECTRE do not follow Fleming!!??

    Kozkov pretends to be a defector and ‘simple’ in front of MI6 at the beginning of the film and in front of Pushkin at the end of the film. During the scenes with Whittaker and at the Russian airbase he is his true self.
  • I haven't seen the film in awhile, but I remember Pryce's performance growing on me a bit through the years. I'll have to watch it again soon, if only for that and Elswit's cinematography.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,985
    Birdleson wrote: »
    On the subject of TSWLM, Stromberg is one of the series' better villains. Not top 3, but definitely somewhere in my top 10.

    You and I are pretty alone, but I enjoy him as well.

    He would probably have been a good Blofeld but as Stromberg he's pretty weak. Presumably in the hands of a younger (?) actor the webbed hands could have come into play in an action/swimming sequence or actual hand-to-hand combat of some sort.

    And presumably as Blofeld he would have escaped?

    As it stands he's above it all, much like the Blofeld he was intended to be.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Stromberg is mostly hampered by low screentime and originally meaning to be Blofeld before it got stripped away due to Kevin Mcclory if my memory serves me right. He's not awful, Curt Jurgens does great with what he's given but he lacks substance imo which is a shame as he had potential.
  • Posts: 631
    Octopussy wrote: »
    The repartee between Bond and Largo in Thunderball is apart of what makes the film brilliant.

    Well said. I think the sparkling Bond vs Largo dialogue as they walk around Largo’s villa is easily one of the best bits of Thunderball, and arguably one of the best dialogue-focussed scenes in any of the series.

  • Posts: 631
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Stromberg is mostly hampered by low screentime and originally meaning to be Blofeld before it got stripped away due to Kevin Mcclory if my memory serves me right. He's not awful, Curt Jurgens does great with what he's given but he lacks substance imo which is a shame as he had potential.

    The only scene where Stromberg really works as a villain, I think, is when he’s about to blow Roger’s wedding tackle to kingdom come. Unfortunately he gets a load of bullets in his own lunchbox five seconds later. Exit Stromberg. Ah well
  • Posts: 7,500
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Stromberg is mostly hampered by low screentime and originally meaning to be Blofeld before it got stripped away due to Kevin Mcclory if my memory serves me right. He's not awful, Curt Jurgens does great with what he's given but he lacks substance imo which is a shame as he had potential.

    His performance is not terrible, but that "he does great" is quite some exaggeration... Boring character, lacklustre performance.
  • Posts: 250
    Jurgens is as asleep at the wheel as he is in all his films. Coasts by on a great voice.

    Lonsdale on the other hand is hilarious and does Christopher Wood justice.
  • Posts: 1,883
    One of the big complaints over time about Carver is his goal is to get the exclusive broadcast rights in China not being enough motivation and use that as a way of putting the character down and film down.

    I've always thought if a man is willing to kill untold numbers of people to start a war to build his media empire that's brilliant because it shows how mad he is in his lust for power. No, it's doesn't have the sexy evil of destroying the human race or irradiating the gold supply of the U.S., but it's unique and still evil.

    And when you think of how dependent we are on forms of media now than we were 23 years ago and our need for immediate information, you can see him being on the forefront of that as well, keeping it relevant.

    Stromberg always has been and remains my least favorite villain. Since he was written to be Blofeld before McClorey scuttled that, they just kind of left him blank, although the Wood novelization fills in the blanks. Juergens himself complained all he gets to do is push buttons. He has a cool voice and that's it. Even his death has a problem in how does the tube through which Stromberg shot the bolt at Bond stay open for Bond to shoot him through? I'm no expert at firearms, but is there any such device like that?

    Largo is a good villain in that he's not just a villain but a more personal villain in that he and Bond are also competing over Domino. The pair have a nice antagonistic one-up game going on, and bonus points in his being directly involved in the action in the film instead of hiding out on his base of operations while subordinates do all the work.

    Brandauer's NSNA Largo is another nice variation. I think, though, that I would have liked to have seen an actor closer to Fleming's description of Largo as a huge Sicilian that would've been a match for Connery in his '65 physical prime.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I always felt Gilbert didn't give his actors enough meat to chew on, I felt the performances in all his films generally flat all around...spectacle over content. The difference between Stromberg and Drax, to me, is that Drax gets better lines.

    I've been up and down on Carver previously but lately I love his hammy performance. And so relevant now (except it's social media and not newspapers)
  • Posts: 2,896
    w2bond wrote: »
    I always felt Gilbert didn't give his actors enough meat to chew on, I felt the performances in all his films generally flat all around...spectacle over content. The difference between Stromberg and Drax, to me, is that Drax gets better lines.

    Quoted for truth! I agree completely regarding Stromberg and Drax. The pity is that the men playing them were excellent actors, but you'd never know it from watching those Bond films. Neither of the Bond girls in those films gives an particularly good performance either. Roger has some very fine moments in TSWLM but in MR he too seems enervated.

  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 1,533
    I'll get a few out.

    •TB is better than GF.
    •Lazenby was a better choice for OHMSS than Connery.
    •DAF isn't that bad.
    •The Brosnan era is underrated. This includes DAD, apart from the CGI and endless quips/puns.
    •Another Way to Die isn't a bad song.
    •QOS is one of the best and SF is good but overrated.
    •SP is far and away the worst of the series.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 12,273
    Remington wrote: »
    I'll get a few out.

    •TB is better than GF.
    •Lazenby was a better choice for OHMSS than Connery.
    •DAF isn't that bad.
    •The Brosnan era is underrated. This includes DAD, apart from the CGI and endless quips/puns.
    •Another Way to Die isn't a bad song.
    •QOS is one of the best and SF is good but overrated.
    •SP is far and away the worst of the series.

    Agreed on the first two.

    DAF is still tough for me to get through.

    I think the Brosnan era has its moments, but other than GE none of the films are very consistent.

    AWTD isn’t one of my favorites but I agree it’s not bad.

    I love QOS, but it doesn’t make my Top 10, while I’ve always loved SF and it’s been in my Top 10 since I first saw it.

    SP is my third-lowest ranked film, so while I don’t agree I definitely can understand where you’re coming from.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Yeah most of em are. I agree with all of them for the most part except Spectre being the worst, Thunderball being better than Goldfinger and Skyfall being good.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Much as it is a mess, SP is still a better film than DAD. I tried watching DAD the other day and it really is the worst of the series. You can see why a reboot was put into action with a new actor.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I tried watching DAD the other day and it really is the worst of the series. You can see why a reboot was put into action with a new actor.

    I agree.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    DAD wasn't the cause of the reboot though, a reboot had been on the table since TLD and they planned one once they got the CR rights back in 2000 I think it was. So a Reboot was inevitable regardless of how DAD did (it made the most out of any bond film up to that point and wasn't too badly received Critically either). Besides Bond was still doing A-Ok afterwards with all the games still being made (Nightfire, Everything Or Nothing). So no DAD wasn't the cause of the reboot like everyone falsely tries to say just so they can find a reason to crap over DAD some more, a film that isn't really deserving of all the hate it gets honestly. Also Spectre is way worse, they made Blofeld be Bond's brother, do I even need to continue there? That alone is sinful enough lol
Sign In or Register to comment.