›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…959698100101…705

Comments

  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    I didn't either, until I read an interview when Michael Apted said Elektra was the first credible female Bond villain... and then I saw TWINE in a very different light, and pretty much as a labour of arrogance.

    Again, who CARES what these idiots say? Judge the product, not the comments after the production.
    I've never had a dude buy a phaser replica from me & later quibble that since I made comments online concerning America needing background checks on gun purchases, I'm a pacifist & my phaser was made by a person who hates guns so it must suck.... :-O

    The thing, the idiot in question directed the movie and made an idiotic comment regarding the movie, but also passing a specific judgment on the whole franchise. So his comment made me see it in.a new light. But it is his arrogance that really got me.
    .

    funny thing is he was absolutely right. Before Elektra maximum thing we've got was Ms. Volpe, who was just a henchmen. All the other Women were just good to provide Bond with an opportunity to get rid of some steam (so to speak).

    Including Rosa Klebb? OOh, my brain is melting just thinking about it. No offence, Lotte.

    You absolutely got me there. But getting rid of steam or not, she also happens to be just a henchman (albeit a rather elevated one) and insofar I judge Apteds comment as 100% correct.

    SRosa Klebb is not just an henchwoman though, she is the field commander in FRWL and with Grant the main antagonist of Bond. In the plot, she is at least as important as Elektra is in TWINE, if not more. She certainly is far more threatening. And in any case, Apted was wrong: there are female villains in Bond, credible ones, since the Fleming novels.

    Still she gets executed while reporting (!) to Blofeld. In TWINE Elektra is the top of the food chain (well, at least among the baddies). Don't forget, that Renard prepares to die for her towards the climax.

    No she doesn't. She is killed by Tania in Venice. And during the whole movie, she is the primary antagonist with Grant. So what if Elektra is on top of the food chain? She is still not nearly as menacing or creepy as Klebb.

    Again my fault. I (of course) wanted to write "expecting to be executed". And one more again - menacing isn't the point. It's about who is the boss and that is Blofeld,like it or not.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,816
    Klebb is still a female villain and the primary antagonist in the movie. Blofeld is like in TB in the background giving orders. But even if he is considered the main villain... Rosa Klebb is a female villain and a very much credible one.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited January 2014 Posts: 13,892
    I always found it easy to explain it this way:

    henchman < villain < supervillain

    Thus, Grant is the henchman; Klebb and Kronsteen are the villains (Klebb being the main); Blofeld is the supervillain. However, Klebb, Kronsteen and Grant can all be regarded as Blofeld's henchmen/women.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Agree, and if Col. Klebb is not the main villain, then neither are Largo, Kristatos, Le Chiffre or Dominic Greene. This is just nitpicking of course, you can make arguments that both views are valid. Does anyone really need to be the Main villain? I am fine with an ensemble of them with various roles and ranks, nothing to lose sleep over.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    edited January 2014 Posts: 2,483
    Ludovico wrote:
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Whatever. I thought It was fine. I honestly havent cringed once in the many times ive seen it. In fact its made me smile a bit. Broz delivers it well and makes an admittedly cheesy line work. There's FAR worse dialogue in the series whether it be from the leery Moore or indeed Brosnan later on. "Forgot to knock" is comparatively pretty mild.

    Agreed. Yes, the Russian crapper is a pretty grody place for Bond to be. But hey, being Bond isn't ALL world-class casinos and Michelin starred restaurants.

    True. And let's not forget that Bond in the novel OHMSS wrote down a list of Blofeld's angels of death using his own urine.

    Now that's what I call Piss Gloria!

    Possible thread title: Crap and Piss in the World of Bond.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,816
    Let's say toilet humour in the World of Bond. In the literary world, I cannot think of anything else than OHMSS's urine ink.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,767
    Perilagu_Khan wrote:
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    ThighsOfXenia wrote:
    From what I've gathered and browsed over, it's almost impossible to make a controversial statement about TWINE. It seems to be probably the most divisive of any Bond film. I see it in plenty of Top 10's and even Top 5's and in plenty of bottom 5's as well.

    A very divisive film it seems.

    Well you could argue that it has the best pre title sequence in the series, but then there can be no dispute - it has

    Some would say Viktor Zokas is the main antagonist, while it is in fact Elektra King. I have in fact made, would some would see, as a controversial statement as saying it's Brosnan's best James Bond release, while most others would favor Goldeneye

    Is that controversial ? Dependant on one persons perspective, but I always stand by that decision, right or wrong

    I will argue that it's nowhere near the best PTS of the series. It's way too long and the boat chase is actually quite boring. The barrell roll in particular isn't helped by the multiple camera cuts or the fact you can see how the stunt is done.

    Agreed. Easily the most overrated PTS. The PTSs of GE and TND, OTOH, are rather underrated, IMO.
    OTOH?
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    ^On the other hand.

    GoldenEye's PTS usually gets the respect it deserves, but Tomorrow Never Dies is definitely an underrated one.

    On another note, Brosnan deserved at least one Fleming title (The World is Not Enough and GoldenEye were at least Fleming-derived, but the other two are just painfully generic), and Craig shouldn't get another Fleming title. He's had two already and they're running rather short. If they want, they can do a Fleming-derived one if they must.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Who are we to say that Craig deserves or doesn't deserve Fleming titles, not that there's much left?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    On another note, Brosnan deserved at least one Fleming title (The World is Not Enough and GoldenEye were at least Fleming-derived, but the other two are just painfully generic)

    The difference with the 90's era is that 'Fleming' was used in a superficial way, as evidenced by the GE title. It has only been during the Craig run that the producers have felt genuinely confident and encouraged to channel the 'essence' of Fleming. Despite Cubby's mantra of 'always going back to Fleming', I think B&M lost sight of that until 2006. This is in part why I feel slightly sorry for Brosnan. I believe, unlike Craig in 2006, it was the pinnacle for him. The job he'd always wanted, got, lost and then got back again. In those circumstances I can find reason for Brosnan not particularly wanting to the rock the boat. By the time he'd voiced any such notion of really bringing back the essence of 'Fleming', post TWINE, they were already on a specific trajectory, that would lead inevitably to DAD. Dan was always slightly less vocal, stating that if he didn't pull it off he'd walk. This, combined with fan backlash, allowed him an opportunity to glean some creative control. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain and he played it perfectly and professionally.

    I sometimes wonder whether Brosnan would have been a different beast had his original casting come to fruition, that risk off loss, of deja vu, not being a factor. Slightly off topic, but on my mind.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    ^On the other hand.

    GoldenEye's PTS usually gets the respect it deserves, but Tomorrow Never Dies is definitely an underrated one.

    On another note, Brosnan deserved at least one Fleming title (The World is Not Enough and GoldenEye were at least Fleming-derived, but the other two are just painfully generic), and Craig shouldn't get another Fleming title. He's had two already and they're running rather short. If they want, they can do a Fleming-derived one if they must.

    It's fairly well known trivia that Die Another Day came from A.E. Houseman's The Day of Battle. Rosmund Pike says it in the audio commentary.

    http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/34011/
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    doubleoego wrote:
    Who are we to say that Craig deserves or doesn't deserve Fleming titles, not that there's much left?

    It's not that he doesn't deserve it, but there's no sense using three Fleming titles on one guy, when there are precious few left. It's about making them last, ultimately.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited January 2014 Posts: 13,350
    What does it matter whether they're used up now or later? I don't see the arguement.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    I was thinking the same thing.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    I just want to see as many Bonds get Fleming titles as possible. Not sure why I have this sudden Communist instinct, but it just seems to be the most fair.
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    I just want to see as many Bonds get Fleming titles as possible. Not sure why I have this sudden Communist instinct, but it just seems to be the most fair.

    I'd love to see a Risico Bond film

    [img][/img]Bond_23__Risico_by_shokxone_studios.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Who are we to say that Craig deserves or doesn't deserve Fleming titles, not that there's much left?

    It's not that he doesn't deserve it, but there's no sense using three Fleming titles on one guy, when there are precious few left. It's about making them last, ultimately.

    And how about Moore, then-getting a full six and a half of them. Should he give a couple of those to Brosnan perhaps?
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Who are we to say that Craig deserves or doesn't deserve Fleming titles, not that there's much left?

    It's not that he doesn't deserve it, but there's no sense using three Fleming titles on one guy, when there are precious few left. It's about making them last, ultimately.

    And how about Moore, then-getting a full six and a half of them. Should he give a couple of those to Brosnan perhaps?

    They had a whole lot more titles then, and it wasn't clear that they were going to get to use them all. Now that they've started doing their own titles (and running short on Fleming's), it makes more sense to stretch them out.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,816
    But there's still plenty of titles to use: Fleming had also chapters's titles. Granted, that could be seen like pushing a bit far. Still, I'd like to see a Bond movie titled, say Multiple Requiem.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Who are we to say that Craig deserves or doesn't deserve Fleming titles, not that there's much left?

    It's not that he doesn't deserve it, but there's no sense using three Fleming titles on one guy, when there are precious few left. It's about making them last, ultimately.

    And how about Moore, then-getting a full six and a half of them. Should he give a couple of those to Brosnan perhaps?

    They had a whole lot more titles then, and it wasn't clear that they were going to get to use them all. Now that they've started doing their own titles (and running short on Fleming's), it makes more sense to stretch them out.

    They're finite. The sooner they use the titles the better, IMO. Then we can get on with speculating about the more important things, such as Bond's narrative arc, his interactions with his supporting cast and the inclusion of more scenes that embody the Fleming-esque spirit. I couldn't give a shit whether a film is called Risico, but I do care about a Bond and M scene at Blades.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    Ludovico wrote:
    But there's still plenty of titles to use: Fleming had also chapters's titles. Granted, that could be seen like pushing a bit far. Still, I'd like to see a Bond movie titled, say Multiple Requiem.

    Not only chapter titles, but snippets of Fleming's prose:

    A Whisper of Hate
    The Fierce Possession
    Zero for a Heart

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    And Nothing Propinks Like Propinquity.
    I just love that chapter title, but have no idea what it means.
  • hildebrand_rarityhildebrand_rarity
    Posts: 316
    If we're going to introduce chapter titles as possible Bond 24 titles, I always thought three from Leif Enger's Peace Like A River would be pretty cool as Bond titles:
    His Separate Shadow
    Your Toughened Heart
    Peeking At Eternity
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,595
    Zero for a Heart would be a killer title.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    Bond 24 title ideas can go here.
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4987/the-name039s-24.-bond-24./p23#Item_691
  • SharkBaitSharkBait
    Posts: 2,107
    I find Casino Royale -67 a fun film. Not in a "haha, I'm laughing my shoes off", but in kind of a this isn't all that bad. Sellers and Niven back at it again. I watch the movie now and then to get my fix of trippy 60's fun. I forgive a lot, when it comes to 60's spy spoofs.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think Brosnan's debut performance in GE is underrated.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    doubleoego wrote:
    I think Brosnan's debut performance in GE is underrated.

    You know upon my last viewing of GE not that long ago I was thinking "those blokes on Mi6 are being a little over-the-top". He's good in the film - though you can tell in some scenes he's self conscious (the casino scene) but he gets better as the film goes on. I'd say his overall performance is a 3/5. I don't think its such a bad thing he's more reserved here - it often works to his advantage.

    My favourite part:

    "Interesting set up Alec...you break into the bank of England by a computer then transfer the money electronically...just seconds before you set off the Goldeneye, which erases every record of the transactions...ingenious"

    Alec: Thank you James

    Bond: "But it still boils down to petty theft...in the end you're just a bank robber...nothing more than a common thief"

    Great delivery by Brosnan...you can hear the complete contempt he has for Alec.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    I like all the films in their own way. But, my favorites are the three Craig films, especially SF.

    If I had to pick my least favorites it would be DAF and DAD.

    Most of Moore films are somewhat underrated like FYEO and TMWTGG.

    I do agree that Moore was too old in AVTAK.

    I love the music all the films. Except the theme song for DAD.

    QoS was actually the first Bond film I saw complete. Before I had only seen the ending for CR.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    Since QoS and CR were the first Bond films I saw, I feel nostalgic while watching them. So, I can't dislike either of them for that.

    I know QoS has many problems, I truly understand why people say it's bad. I just can't hate the film.
Sign In or Register to comment.