Controversial opinions about Bond films

1639640642644645666

Comments

  • Posts: 4,583
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I have never read any of the continuation novels. There must be many of them? And are they worth the effort?

    There are a lot, indeed. You can find a complete list here :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond#Novels_and_related_works

    Oh, and BTW, the first four Gardner novels have been mined in AVTAK and TLD. Just so you know.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    Posts: 14,004
    echo wrote: »
    I see a lot of commentary about Australia being too boring a location...but I think you could always do a desert training mission somewhere (Hanging Rock?) or even a scene atop the Sydney Opera House (shades of AVTAK).

    Well Australia was used as one of the locations in Raymond Benson's Zero Minus Ten (1997). It featured Bond in an Outback scene using his wits and ingenuity to survive. I also recall reading a letter to Ian Fleming in The Man with the Golden Typewriter (2015) where the person suggested Fleming write a Bond novel set in Australia. I agree that it has plenty of untapped potential as a Bond film location.
  • Posts: 11,486
    OCTOPUSSY

    The Tarzan yell bit: I actually like it. Sure it's over the top and silly, but so is the Magnificent Seven theme in MR.
    Another controversial opinion on this topic-
    I don't believe James Bond himself is intended to be performing the Tarzan yell, it's just an audio joke inserted.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,021
    There's a Tarzan yell in Revenge of the Sith as well, and it made me think of Octopussy, lol. Probably a more appropriate sound for a Wookiee to make, rather than Roger Moore (or as you say, possibly as an inserted audio joke).
  • Posts: 1,512
    It's funny I just wrote in my Bondathon post about how the Tarzan yell is the only thing in Octopussy (yeah, I like "sit" and I LOVE "hiss off") that I find overblown in terms of silliness.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 18,983
    It's funny I just wrote in my Bondathon post about how the Tarzan yell is the only thing in Octopussy (yeah, I like "sit" and I LOVE "hiss off") that I find overblown in terms of silliness.

    It's as unacceptable to me as is the whistle in TMWTGG.
  • Posts: 1,512
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,119
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    I’m not that offended by either of these moments. It’s the Dolly and Jaws meeting scene in MR that really pushes Bond into parody for me.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 18,983
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...
  • Posts: 1,512
    @DarthDimi I can definitely understand those thoughts. You and I share a really similar view of the series as a whole. I, too, appreciate those and I love most of the Bond films. It's weird, isn't it. Ultimately, critiquing a movie will inevitably come down to something subjective or intangible that is difficult to qualify in terms of words.

    For me, as someone who *does* currently rank SP a bit below NSNA (not by much, mind you), it has to do with so many factors that I couldn't possibly fit into a forum post. The short of it is is that the feeling I get when watching SP simply doesn't come anywhere close to the feeling I get when I watch OP.

    A lot of it is assessing a movie within the context of the time it was made. A *huge* part of it is who is playing Bond. What's a good example here. MR's "flaws" would have been more egregious with Dalton in the role. This isn't the same as saying "we're giving it a pass because we hold Roger to a lower standard." Just the opposite. It's because Moore is so good at inhabiting Bond (indeed, he and Connery are the only two actors in the series who I truly see AS James Bond, they truly *become* the man rather than portray the man) that he makes these aspects permissable.

    Because, if we get down to it, "objectivity" is horribly difficult to get to in film. There is nothing inherently, objectively wrong with, say, the "brother" angle in SP. There is nothing objectively "bad" about a double-take pigeon. Everything must be looked at within context. And there is always SO much context in every Bond film. History, society, culture, the industry, the actor playing the role, the script, the last thirty minutes, the following thirty minutes.

    tl;dr -- The horse's ass isn't a flaw because it exists in a world where the horse's ass is something James Bond would actually be using. Moore makes it believable and real. And, furthrmore, even if these moments do bother you (like Tarzan yell bothers me) they are fleeting. They don't last long. Now, if someone thinks Roger Moore is a TERRIBLE James Bond, they're likely to think the entire film sucks and that everything is egregious, right? It's all contextual. Lastly, OP is just exciting and is full of exciting filmmaking whereas SP feels very tired to me, as though Mendes and company just couldn't wait to be done with it. I would be happy to talk more about this. It's a very interesting subject.

    I really appreciate your thoughts and, again, we do agree on a lot of it.
  • Posts: 1,512
    As for the "different yardsticks," time will certainly tell. You could be totally on the money. QOS has received a reappraisal here and abroad actually, and it was hated for quite some time when it was newer.

    I guess my entire post was to say that of course we are using different yardsticks, but I don't think said yardsticks are being applied unfairly (if that makes ANy sense at all, lol). In other words, I don't think I judge Craig's films any harsher than I judge Moore's. If that were the case, I wouldn't have 2 of Craig's 4 films higher than all but 1 or maybe 2 of Moore's entries. I simply judge them with different criteria.
  • Posts: 1,466
    As for the "different yardsticks," time will certainly tell. You could be totally on the money. QOS has received a reappraisal here and abroad actually, and it was hated for quite some time when it was newer.

    I guess my entire post was to say that of course we are using different yardsticks, but I don't think said yardsticks are being applied unfairly (if that makes ANy sense at all, lol). In other words, I don't think I judge Craig's films any harsher than I judge Moore's. If that were the case, I wouldn't have 2 of Craig's 4 films higher than all but 1 or maybe 2 of Moore's entries. I simply judge them with different criteria.

    First off, props to DarthDimi for a worthy point of discussion.

    ThighsofXenia, you stated exactly what I think about this. I think it comes out of expectations or what we're set up for. When looking at something like SP, we came into it with big expectations following the success of SF - that film's director coming back, the return of Bond's greatest enemy and the teaser with hints of the OHMSS theme setting us up for what we hoped was something to rival that film in terms of scope, entertainment and it was a disappointment overall.

    I don't hate SP. In some ways I enjoy it more than SF in some ways, but the ways it disappoints is tougher to take than what was basically to be expected in a typical Moore film. I get more annoyed at films like TWINE or AVTAK where the tone is all over the place.

    But it's also funny that it was mentioned about QoS being reevaluated. I liked it from my first viewing and have always rated it higher than most, but can understand where others would be disappointed in it following the standard CR set.
  • It's harder for SP to be "reevaluated" when it's been the most recent Bond film for nearly 6 years now. That's why I'm curious how NTTD will impact that film.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.

    Whatever the defects of every film prior to SP, they mostly manage to be fun (in whatever way they attempt - by being either thrilling, spectacular, funny, silly etc. They all manage at least one or two of these qualities even if they have other weak aspects). SP fails on each one of these counts.

    Other Bond movies have weak elements or bad moments. But they are not weak or bad films overall. SP is.

    I do concede that the fact that it is STILL the most recent Bond movie means it gets more flak, and that in the future the hate against it will soften.

  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

  • Posts: 12,921
    I also think people are unfairly critical of SP. It has plenty of flaws and is less inspired than SF, but it has a lot of good things too.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.
  • Posts: 12,921
    What bothered me the most about the foster brother angle is that it was awfully contrived. I wouldn't have minded Blofeld killing Hauberhoser in the past. It would have also been contrived, but not unlike "ordinary" contrivances in Fleming and in the original short story.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.

    If you think people don't like QoS and SP because the internet has made them whinier then we won't agree at all.

    I don't mind chance encounters. I do mind Bond growing up with and being a foster brother to Blofeld. That's the step too far for me. And I know lots of Bond fans agree.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.

    If you think people don't like QoS and SP because the internet has made them whinier then we won't agree at all.

    I don't mind chance encounters. I do mind Bond growing up with and being a foster brother to Blofeld. That's the step too far for me. And I know lots of Bond fans agree.

    But it's a lot more than chance encounters. With the debatable exception of Dominic Greene, every Bond villain since 1995 has been intimately linked to British Intelligence.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.

    Do you genuinely think that all the Bond fans on here who rate QoS, DAD, and SP so lowly do so because they are entitled and whiny? And not just because they are discerning fans who have honed their opinions through years of watching, reading, and debating?

    Don't think it was O'Connell who did that survey, I think it was someone else. Think they had an anonymous Twitter handle. Unless I missed a different survey.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.

    If you think people don't like QoS and SP because the internet has made them whinier then we won't agree at all.

    I don't mind chance encounters. I do mind Bond growing up with and being a foster brother to Blofeld. That's the step too far for me. And I know lots of Bond fans agree.

    But it's a lot more than chance encounters. With the debatable exception of Dominic Greene, every Bond villain since 1995 has been intimately linked to British Intelligence.

    'Linked to British Intelligence' doesn't mean Bond. Bond is doing what M tells him to in most of those cases. I mentioned nothing about M or British Intelligence and their connections. I mentioned Bond's professionalism.

    The case of something like TND is an exception where Bond is chosen because he has a way in through personal connections to the villain. It helps the mission. (and to be honest, I am not keen on that element of that either.)

    Either way, despite whatever had come before in either books or films, the Blofeld foster brother angle is a step too far and I wish it had never happened.
  • edited February 11 Posts: 476
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.

    Do you genuinely think that all the Bond fans on here who rate QoS, DAD, and SP so lowly do so because they are entitled and whiny? And not just because they are discerning fans who have honed their opinions through years of watching, reading, and debating?

    Don't think it was O'Connell who did that survey, I think it was someone else. Think they had an anonymous Twitter handle. Unless I missed a different survey.

    Well, no, I don't think everyone who rates DAD, QOS, or SP low is necessarily whiny or entitled. But the amount of vitriol leveled at these three films is ridiculous. I'm also hardly the first person to claim that fan communities have become whinier and more entitled with the advent of the internet. So I have to ask myself if 60% of the Bond films released since online fan communities have become a thing are really the WORST BOND EVAR, or if....yeah, people are a bit whinier and a bit more entitled.

    I'm also quite confident that if TSWLM didn't exist, and it came out next year, people would lose their s**t over how stupid it is. If YOLT (the novel or film) were released for the first time now, it would be reviled. The film is dumber than DAD, and the novel is crazier than SP. And that's not to say I dislike any of it.

    'Linked to British Intelligence' doesn't mean Bond. Bond is doing what M tells him to in most of those cases. I mentioned nothing about M or British Intelligence and their connections. I mentioned Bond's professionalism.

    The case of something like TND is an exception where Bond is chosen because he has a way in through personal connections to the villain. It helps the mission. (and to be honest, I am not keen on that element of that either.)

    Either way, despite whatever had come before in either books or films, the Blofeld foster brother angle is a step too far and I wish it had never happened.

    And I guess I just don't see how it's even a centimeter further than what we see in GE, TND, TWINE, SF, or the YOLT novel.

    Your rule seems a bit arbitrary to me. M and British Intelligence can be linked to every supervillain under the sun, but their star agent shouldn't be? How would that even work? M and Bond are so close on a personal level that he can break into her home more than once and not face repercussions.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 11 Posts: 18,983
    The Blofeld foster brother angle is indeed not a good thing, especially since Austin Powers beat them to it years ago. But let us also not forget that in the past, we've seen villains who were plastic surgery clones or plastic surgery aliases, products of genetic experiments, Stockholm Syndrome victims turned radical, ... The Bonds love to go exotic with their baddies sometimes. Then again, I too regret the decision to make Blofeld some long-lost relative of Bond. It doesn't sit well with me that they are trying to expand on Bond's ancestry and youth when Fleming himself deliberately stayed away from that. In the same year that "your mom is named Martha too?" was used as a big plot point, it felt like we were being taken for fools. And indeed, I too was looking for something close to OHMSS, for Blofeld to be revealed as the big sinister figure behind everything since CR, but then without the problematic Lucasian attempt at making everything and everyone interconnected in the extreme.

    And yet, there's something going on in the world of filmmaking these days that seems to automatically lead to such concepts. After all, the latest Star Wars pulled a similar "we're all related" stunt in a big bad way. Someone seems to think we like this. ;-)

    Still, there's much more to SP than just that one revelation. It doesn't destroy the film for me any more than the fact that Moon was morphed into Graves or that Alec is basically going to rob some banks. Few Bond films are without their flaws after all. Even one of my number 1 Bonds, OHMSS, revolves around the silly idea of mass hypnosis and the fact that by changing Bond's name, Blofeld won't recognise him.

    Again, I don't mind people pointing out the issues with SP, but for over 5 years now, SP has been pissed on, treated as roadkill, worse even than that utterly nonsensical, ugly-looking, low-quality product of hate called NSNA. And that is several steps too far for me. That's like calling someone you despise "worse than Hitler", hyperbole for the sake of it. But I'm also glad we're having this discussion right now because I respect the fact that people are willing to admit that it has a lot to do with expectations. And yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. I didn't like TND at first, simply because it wasn't GE 2. Neither was I too pleased with QOS at first, simply because it wasn't CR 2. And just to demonstrate the weaknesses in my own thoughts: part of the reason why I really like SP is that I was never quite as enamoured with SF as many folks were. In fact, many of the issues people have with SP are issues I have with SF... So in the end, we're all more or less on the same page, but with different films in different "roles". ;-)
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    They're both really bad. The whistle is far more egregious though because it nearly destroys what was, at the time, one of the best car stunts ever captured on film.

    The moment in OP is over as quickly as it begins. As much as I hate it, I equally hate how much people allow those 4-5 seconds to color their entire opinion about the film (not accusing you of this -- this is more common with like, mainstream critics working for Guardian or something).

    Oh no, absolutely not. I love OP. I would never let that Tarzan yell spoil the fun I'm having with the movie. OP ranks rather high on my list.

    What I hate, though, is this. In all seriousness, some of Roger's Bonds are silly obstacle courses one can only navigate with the endurance of a true Bond fan, yet we all love those movies. But a film like SP is spat on and vilified for its weaker plot, the "brother" angle and, according to some, poor acting, weak action--whatever. My point is that it feels to me, correctly or not, that some "classic" Bonds get away with pretty much everything while the latest entry in the series takes a beating like the new kid in the playground. Hence some of the weirdest rankings ever, including NSNA beating SP and whatnot. Of course, this isn't an exact science, and I'm well aware of that. We all have our opinions. Yet I still cannot shake off the strange feeling that SP is being molested because it smells after the final puffs out of a can of deodorant, while certain films that stink like rotten fish are celebrated because "it has Connery at his best" or "the stunt work was awesome!"

    And I get it, I do. I love all the Bonds, including the most nonsensical ones like DAF, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD. I shall proudly defend them whenever they are attacked by outsiders. But oh boy, SP is sometimes treated as the worst thing since Hiroshima, as barely a movie, as some rough cut you wouldn't release even with a shotgun to your head.

    I'm sure it'll get better. Let's just give it some time. QOS took some serious beating too and has since been thoroughly re-evaluated. Still, we're all giving OP a pass despite the clowns, appalling Indian street jokes, horse's asses, tigers, circus acts, monkey suits, wait-who's-got-the-real-egg-now?, crazy Russian generals and more. So do I; the film bloody rocks! Yet poor SP, not too different from the acclaimed SF, is somehow the worst Bond film ever made. It's a strange hysteria which I just don't understand. It makes no sense to me. I don't expect people to call it the best Bond ever made--I mean, come on--but I can't help feeling that different yardsticks are being used...

    SP is boring and no fun whatsoever, and compounds this by including the Blofeld foster brother stuff which is not only stupid but threatens the entire premise of James Bond 007 - that he is a professional employed by the British government dispassionately. That is why it attracts so much hate.


    How does the foster brother thing threaten the idea that Bond is a professional dispassionately employed by the British government?

    That's a good question. My feeling is that Bond getting emotionally involved in a mission is one thing, but him being intimately related to the enemy of humanity takes the impersonal professionalism out of the equation. Many commentators have equated Bond with St George defeating the dragon, going out there to defend us from external enemies. I can't imagine the myth of St George would have the same relevance if the dragon and George were somehow related, or knew each other, or grew up together. (No idea how that would work by the way! lol).

    I hope that makes sense. The appeal of Bond is that he is a professional, not related to the bad guys.

    Put it this way, if Mi6 knew he grew up with Blofeld, then they wouldn't or shouldn't employ Bond to take him down. (obviously in the film this isn't the case).

    You could argue that they shouldn't send him out to get Blofeld after Tracy has been killed. But the films sort of fudge that, don't they? It's not even clear if Bond is avenging Tracy in DAF.

    Well, the answer to the question is "It doesn't at all"!

    You have to remember that this is a series where in the books, M's bridge acquaintance wants to destroy London with a missile, Japanese gods summon Bond to kill his mortal enemy in a massive coincidence, and Bond is set on the trail of Goldfinger first by chance encounter with a character from an old book, and then again by his boss.

    It's a series where his ex-girlfriend married a guy who's gonna start World War 3. And M's best friend's daughter is going to kill millions of people in Istanbul. Where MI6 agents like Trevelyan and Silva apparently become supervillains with some regularity.

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    I think Spectre is hated mostly because the internet has made fans whinier and more entitled. Mark O'Connell recently did a big survey of fans, and found QOS, DAD, and SP to be the worst Bond films, which is kind of silly. EON have not suddenly become very bad at making these things. The folks who hate those movies are probably not going to like the next one all that much, or if they do, they won't like the one after that.

    Do you genuinely think that all the Bond fans on here who rate QoS, DAD, and SP so lowly do so because they are entitled and whiny? And not just because they are discerning fans who have honed their opinions through years of watching, reading, and debating?

    Don't think it was O'Connell who did that survey, I think it was someone else. Think they had an anonymous Twitter handle. Unless I missed a different survey.

    Well, no, I don't think everyone who rates DAD, QOS, or SP low is necessarily whiny or entitled. But the amount of vitriol leveled at these three films is ridiculous. I'm also hardly the first person to claim that fan communities have become whinier and more entitled with the advent of the internet. So I have to ask myself if 60% of the Bond films released since online fan communities have become a thing are really the WORST BOND EVAR, or if....yeah, people are a bit whinier and a bit more entitled.

    I'm also quite confident that if TSWLM didn't exist, and it came out next year, people would lose their s**t over how stupid it is. If YOLT (the novel or film) were released for the first time now, it would be reviled. The film is dumber than DAD, and the novel is crazier than SP. And that's not to say I dislike any of it.

    'Linked to British Intelligence' doesn't mean Bond. Bond is doing what M tells him to in most of those cases. I mentioned nothing about M or British Intelligence and their connections. I mentioned Bond's professionalism.

    The case of something like TND is an exception where Bond is chosen because he has a way in through personal connections to the villain. It helps the mission. (and to be honest, I am not keen on that element of that either.)

    Either way, despite whatever had come before in either books or films, the Blofeld foster brother angle is a step too far and I wish it had never happened.

    And I guess I just don't see how it's even a centimeter further than what we see in GE, TND, TWINE, SF, or the YOLT novel.

    Your rule seems a bit arbitrary to me. M and British Intelligence can be linked to every supervillain under the sun, but their star agent shouldn't be? How would that even work? M and Bond are so close on a personal level that he can break into her home more than once and not face repercussions.

    I didn't say Bond can't be linked to super villains. His job means of course that he will have knowledge of them and have interacted with them. But to have done so when he was a kid in such an intimate manner is a stretch too far.

    Doesn't he have to face his old school bully in High Time to Kill? Equally crass imo.

    Anyway, we disagree. No biggie.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 601
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The Blofeld foster brother angle is indeed not a good thing, especially since Austin Powers beat them to it years ago. But let us also not forget that in the past, we've seen villains who were plastic surgery clones or plastic surgery aliases, products of genetic experiments, Stockholm Syndrome victims turned radical, ... The Bonds love to go exotic with their baddies sometimes. Then again, I too regret the decision to make Blofeld some long-lost relative of Bond. It doesn't sit well with me that they are trying to expand on Bond's ancestry and youth when Fleming himself deliberately stayed away from that. In the same year that "your mom is named Martha too?" was used as a big plot point, it felt like we were being taken for fools. And indeed, I too was looking for something close to OHMSS, for Blofeld to be revealed as the big sinister figure behind everything since CR, but then without the problematic Lucasian attempt at making everything and everyone interconnected in the extreme.

    And yet, there's something going on in the world of filmmaking these days that seems to automatically lead to such concepts. After all, the latest Star Wars pulled a similar "we're all related" stunt in a big bad way. Someone seems to think we like this. ;-)

    Still, there's much more to SP than just that one revelation. It doesn't destroy the film for me any more than the fact that Moon was morphed into Graves or that Alec is basically going to rob some banks. Few Bond films are without their flaws after all. Even one of my number 1 Bonds, OHMSS, revolves around the silly idea of mass hypnosis and the fact that by changing Bond's name, Blofeld won't recognise him.

    Again, I don't mind people pointing out the issues with SP, but for over 5 years now, SP has been pissed on, treated as roadkill, worse even than that utterly nonsensical, ugly-looking, low-quality product of hate called NSNA. And that is several steps too far for me. That's like calling someone you despise "worse than Hitler", hyperbole for the sake of it. But I'm also glad we're having this discussion right now because I respect the fact that people are willing to admit that it has a lot to do with expectations. And yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. I didn't like TND at first, simply because it wasn't GE 2. Neither was I too pleased with QOS at first, simply because it wasn't CR 2. And just to demonstrate the weaknesses in my own thoughts: part of the reason why I really like SP is that I was never quite as enamoured with SF as many folks were. In fact, many of the issues people have with SP are issues I have with SF... So in the end, we're all more or less on the same page, but with different films in different "roles". ;-)

    Fair enough. Well argued. (Though I have to admit SP is the only one I actually actively dislike - I love the rest in their own way).

    I have grown to like NSNA quite a lot. Put it way above SP. Don't come at me for it though...I don't have the energy to defend NSNA today haha.
  • Posts: 1,466

    Crazy coincidence and massive personal melodrama have been with the series for quite some time. I actually prefer Spectre's approach of having the goofy mythical and meta quality of just making Blofeld a figure from Bond's past. It's a lot more fun for me than MI6 agents going bad all the time.

    Or better yet, how about Blofeld is just a terrible, threatening presence who is a danger to everyone? That seemed to work before pretty well. All the former MI6 agents turncoats have long been a cliché for Bond and the MI series. The persona angle is also beyond cliché these days.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet On the coast of the Baltic Sea
    Posts: 128
    ThighsOfXenia, your username has reminded me of a Controversial Opinion (well, maybe more of a Pet Peeve) which I would like to share with the group. Namely: I do not believe it is possible for a woman--even a tall drink of water like Famke Janssen--to crush a man to death with her thighs. Heck, I don't think that Arnold Schwarzenegger could crush a man to death with his thighs!

    May I suggest an alternate possible superpower? How about a woman who smothers people to death by sitting on their face?? And of course she "gets off" as they die. (I admit this may be a little too R-rated for James Bond.)

    M: "And whatever you do, Bond, don't let Ms. Onatopp sit on your face."
    Bond: "But you know what a cunning linguist I am, sir."
    M: "Might kill you."
    Bond: "Is it... that foul, sir?"
    M: "She's weaponized her WAP."
    Bond: "I take this as a challenge."
  • Posts: 1,512
    The Bond series isn't particularly well known or appreciated for its realism.
Sign In or Register to comment.