›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…724725726727728730»

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 5 Posts: 9,718
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    The only issue/continuity with Vesper is that she's only revealed to be 23 when she died

    That's the least of NTTD's many problems though, it's a part of NTTD's so many problems.

    How can that even be considered a problem? It's a blink-and-you-miss-it detail that is never relevant to the plot whatsoever.

    I was going to say the same. And I’m well aware of the film’s shortcomings, but I wonder if some can even appreciate the talent and effort that went into that script where they solved certain issues from the film before, while simultaneously creating an entirely new story and characters for Craig’s last film.

    In the end, no film comes off unscathed and perfect in execution from first frame to last. Not one. But in the end, each to their own…
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,350
    I was madly in love with Diana Rigg as Emma Peel around 1966/67, to the extent a ten-year old could be madly in love. I also think she was one of the better actors in the Bond series, especially if you only consider the "Bond girls". But then Tracy was never meant to be just another Bond girl, but had a sort of fully-rounded role as a central character, and Diana Rigg played her perfectly. However, my gripe is with that character. I never found the idea of James Bond falling in love with that spoiled-brat, borderline psychopath credible, neither in the novel nor in the movie. Then again, I never thought any woman falling in love with the Lazenby Bond credible, either.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 480
    Borderline psychopath?! Surely she was just mildly neurotic!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 5 Posts: 4,055
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I was madly in love with Diana Rigg as Emma Peel around 1966/67, to the extent a ten-year old could be madly in love. I also think she was one of the better actors in the Bond series, especially if you only consider the "Bond girls". But then Tracy was never meant to be just another Bond girl, but had a sort of fully-rounded role as a central character, and Diana Rigg played her perfectly. However, my gripe is with that character. I never found the idea of James Bond falling in love with that spoiled-brat, borderline psychopath credible, neither in the novel nor in the movie. Then again, I never thought any woman falling in love with the Lazenby Bond credible, either.

    Well, Lazenby have a Masculine, boyish charm, he was close to the book in that sense (but again, the film stayed close to the book), given Bond's descriptions in the books, I never thought any woman falling in love with him credible either (I don't find Hoagy Carmichael attractive or even charming in any sense and the literary Bond also came across as unlikable and a bit of a creep either, even for its time, but like Lazenby, I can get the sense that he had this sort of boyish, masculine charm that makes women swoon, I'm female so I can understand this, with me reading him in the books, I can't help but be attracted to him either).

    I do agree with you regarding the Tracy character, but at least in the film, Tracy have been fleshed out for us to know what she could do more: aside from showing her driving skills in Stock Car Race, she can also drive a horse, proved to be witty, resourceful, a great skiier, and a capable fighter against Gunther, no doubt Bond married her, she could be everything, she was even capable of holding a gun.

    And she's not a fully fledged neurotic person like she was in the book which came across also as exaggerated and a bit annoying, Diana Rigg added more class to the character, she's much more realistic and believable as a human being compared to the one dimensional character in the book, hence, she's an improvement over the book.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 5,130
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I was madly in love with Diana Rigg as Emma Peel around 1966/67, to the extent a ten-year old could be madly in love. I also think she was one of the better actors in the Bond series, especially if you only consider the "Bond girls". But then Tracy was never meant to be just another Bond girl, but had a sort of fully-rounded role as a central character, and Diana Rigg played her perfectly. However, my gripe is with that character. I never found the idea of James Bond falling in love with that spoiled-brat, borderline psychopath credible, neither in the novel nor in the movie. Then again, I never thought any woman falling in love with the Lazenby Bond credible, either.

    Well, Lazenby have a Masculine, boyish charm, he was close to the book in that sense (but again, the film stayed close to the book), given Bond's descriptions in the books, I never thought any woman falling in love with him credible either (I don't find Hoagy Carmichael attractive or even charming in any sense and the literary Bond also came across as unlikable and a bit of a creep either, even for its time, but like Lazenby, I can get the sense that he had this sort of boyish, masculine charm that makes women swoon, I'm female so I can understand this, with me reading him in the books, I can't help but be attracted to him either).

    I do agree with you regarding the Tracy character, but at least in the film, Tracy have been fleshed out for us to know what she could do more: aside from showing her driving skills in Stock Car Race, she can also drive a horse, proved to be witty, resourceful, a great skiier, and a capable fighter against Gunther, no doubt Bond married her, she could be everything, she was even capable of holding a gun.

    And she's not a fully fledged neurotic person like she was in the book which came across also as exaggerated and a bit annoying, Diana Rigg added more class to the character, she's much more realistic and believable as a human being compared to the one dimensional character in the book, hence, she's an improvement over the book.

    Raymond Benson commented that it was the mysteriousness of Tracy that Bond is attracted to. The filmmakers needed to show Tracy being a unique character. So that is how it seemed the filmmakers approached this part of the story. Richard Maibaum said that OHMSS was his favorite of the Fleming novels. It shows. It is a great story due to its faithfulness and taking off-beat chances when necessary.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,901
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Eva Green is a bit miscast, but I do think she's very sexy.

    Because she's half-French?

    I mean, I think she's perfect in the role, and certainly better than the runner-up, Olivia Wilde.

    Eva Green is pretty. But her multiple moles and freckles can be very distracting. Particularly in the casino scenes in CR.

    That's a very odd argument, if you'll permit me saying so. No offence ofc :)

    What I do find distracting in the casino scenes are the information lines Mathis has to give all the time: "(...) dollars in the pot", "character X has to go all in.".

    Personally I think Eva Green is the best thing about CR, she steals all the scenes she's in and I, for one, think she's a perfect fit. A huge improvement on the literary counterpart, too.

    I agree completely. Green is a very compelling screen presence and Craig matches her step for step. I don't think either's performance would be as good without the other.
  • Reflsin2bourbonsReflsin2bourbons
    Posts: 480
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I was madly in love with Diana Rigg as Emma Peel around 1966/67, to the extent a ten-year old could be madly in love. I also think she was one of the better actors in the Bond series, especially if you only consider the "Bond girls". But then Tracy was never meant to be just another Bond girl, but had a sort of fully-rounded role as a central character, and Diana Rigg played her perfectly. However, my gripe is with that character. I never found the idea of James Bond falling in love with that spoiled-brat, borderline psychopath credible, neither in the novel nor in the movie. Then again, I never thought any woman falling in love with the Lazenby Bond credible, either.

    Well, Lazenby have a Masculine, boyish charm, he was close to the book in that sense (but again, the film stayed close to the book), given Bond's descriptions in the books, I never thought any woman falling in love with him credible either (I don't find Hoagy Carmichael attractive or even charming in any sense and the literary Bond also came across as unlikable and a bit of a creep either, even for its time, but like Lazenby, I can get the sense that he had this sort of boyish, masculine charm that makes women swoon, I'm female so I can understand this, with me reading him in the books, I can't help but be attracted to him either).

    This actually is a very good point that I was thinking about recently. Bond is handsome enough to charm women on looks alone; but the sketch doesn't really have that level of charm. (Hoagy Carmichael is alright looking to me). Obviously, Fleming modelled Bond's looks on him and his brother, but Carmichael bore resemblance to many film stars of the time (Tania remarks the same).

    This long-winded train of though basically brought me to the conclusion that when considering Bond's relative attractiveness, the prettier face of the typical actor (in line with Brosnan or Dalton) is probably a realistic barometer of translation.
Sign In or Register to comment.