Controversial opinions about Bond films

1618619621623624696

Comments

  • edited February 21 Posts: 1,017
    A
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I can understand not liking DAD for a lot of reasons, but "Pierce should have done a De Niro and lost 50 pounds for an invisible car movie" is not one of them. Good grief!

    Well, maybe then they should also have done away with the invisible car. The sci-fi extravaganza of DAD is another problem but it does not take away from the unbelievable nature of Bond's early predicament. Two wrongs can't make one right.

    What would make it right? The only way to fix it would be to have Bond just not be captured.

    Either make it a serious "edgy" Bond film, where he does get captured and suffered from it (no need to be super realistic and turn him into Winston Smith in the Ministry of Live, just show that it had a toll on him), or go fantasy TSWLM Bond (not my favourite approach by the way) and do away with the emprisonment and torture. In other words, choose what kind of Bond you want and commit to it.

    So yes, the only way to fix it would be to not have Bond captured. Even Bond looking like Winston Smith after 14 months would have been on the optimistic side, I feel.


    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I haven't seen the film in a while, but does the fact that he was in captivity for 14 months have any significance to the rest of the film? I guess it takes some time for Zao to get captured and an exchange negotiated. Other than that, once they realized that Brosnan wasn't going to do a Bale and starve himself half to death (or that they actually didn't really want him to) they easily could have written around that.

    But in the end, this is a prime "we have thought about this not very good movie way too much"-discussion...

    I'm guessing the 14 months timeframe was designed to ensure the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001 could be factored in as happening since Bond's capture, imprisonment and torture began. I think M says to Bond, "While you were away the world changed." This was the writers' way of acknowledging all that had happened in the real world since the last Bond film was released in late 1999. The War on Terror was in full flow and in a film series such Bond it had to be acknowledged in some way in a 2002 film.

    That, and the film needed to span a considerable amount of time for the Gustav Graves persona to be created and become as revered as he was. Should have been twice as many months though, really. Not that it would have made the film more realistic, alas..

    Exactly! They needed time for the gene therapy.

    And the gene therapy is pure sci-fi. DAD creates one deus ex machina after another.

    It's dumb, but it's not a deus ex machina. A deus ex machina is a solution to a problem being solved by a random miracle not really set up by other events in the narrative. Goldfinger kind of has one at the end, and Sharkey saving Bond from Kilifer is pretty close, but DAD doesn't really have any.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 21 Posts: 6,484
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)
  • Posts: 13,263
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I can understand not liking DAD for a lot of reasons, but "Pierce should have done a De Niro and lost 50 pounds for an invisible car movie" is not one of them. Good grief!

    Well, maybe then they should also have done away with the invisible car. The sci-fi extravaganza of DAD is another problem but it does not take away from the unbelievable nature of Bond's early predicament. Two wrongs can't make one right.

    What would make it right? The only way to fix it would be to have Bond just not be captured.

    Either make it a serious "edgy" Bond film, where he does get captured and suffered from it (no need to be super realistic and turn him into Winston Smith in the Ministry of Live, just show that it had a toll on him), or go fantasy TSWLM Bond (not my favourite approach by the way) and do away with the emprisonment and torture. In other words, choose what kind of Bond you want and commit to it.

    So yes, the only way to fix it would be to not have Bond captured. Even Bond looking like Winston Smith after 14 months would have been on the optimistic side, I feel.


    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I haven't seen the film in a while, but does the fact that he was in captivity for 14 months have any significance to the rest of the film? I guess it takes some time for Zao to get captured and an exchange negotiated. Other than that, once they realized that Brosnan wasn't going to do a Bale and starve himself half to death (or that they actually didn't really want him to) they easily could have written around that.

    But in the end, this is a prime "we have thought about this not very good movie way too much"-discussion...

    I'm guessing the 14 months timeframe was designed to ensure the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001 could be factored in as happening since Bond's capture, imprisonment and torture began. I think M says to Bond, "While you were away the world changed." This was the writers' way of acknowledging all that had happened in the real world since the last Bond film was released in late 1999. The War on Terror was in full flow and in a film series such Bond it had to be acknowledged in some way in a 2002 film.

    That, and the film needed to span a considerable amount of time for the Gustav Graves persona to be created and become as revered as he was. Should have been twice as many months though, really. Not that it would have made the film more realistic, alas..

    Exactly! They needed time for the gene therapy.

    And the gene therapy is pure sci-fi. DAD creates one deus ex machina after another.

    I love how they didn't bother to remove Zao's diamonds before the treatment. It's like they expected genes to somehow remove diamonds from his face ;))

    It's also a dead giveaway. M: "Say, 007, this man with scars and diamonds in his skin, is this Zao the North Korean terrorist?" Bond: "No, that must be another one."
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    Posts: 14,770
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I can understand not liking DAD for a lot of reasons, but "Pierce should have done a De Niro and lost 50 pounds for an invisible car movie" is not one of them. Good grief!

    Well, maybe then they should also have done away with the invisible car. The sci-fi extravaganza of DAD is another problem but it does not take away from the unbelievable nature of Bond's early predicament. Two wrongs can't make one right.

    What would make it right? The only way to fix it would be to have Bond just not be captured.

    Either make it a serious "edgy" Bond film, where he does get captured and suffered from it (no need to be super realistic and turn him into Winston Smith in the Ministry of Live, just show that it had a toll on him), or go fantasy TSWLM Bond (not my favourite approach by the way) and do away with the emprisonment and torture. In other words, choose what kind of Bond you want and commit to it.

    So yes, the only way to fix it would be to not have Bond captured. Even Bond looking like Winston Smith after 14 months would have been on the optimistic side, I feel.


    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I haven't seen the film in a while, but does the fact that he was in captivity for 14 months have any significance to the rest of the film? I guess it takes some time for Zao to get captured and an exchange negotiated. Other than that, once they realized that Brosnan wasn't going to do a Bale and starve himself half to death (or that they actually didn't really want him to) they easily could have written around that.

    But in the end, this is a prime "we have thought about this not very good movie way too much"-discussion...

    I'm guessing the 14 months timeframe was designed to ensure the September 11th terrorist attacks of 2001 could be factored in as happening since Bond's capture, imprisonment and torture began. I think M says to Bond, "While you were away the world changed." This was the writers' way of acknowledging all that had happened in the real world since the last Bond film was released in late 1999. The War on Terror was in full flow and in a film series such Bond it had to be acknowledged in some way in a 2002 film.

    That, and the film needed to span a considerable amount of time for the Gustav Graves persona to be created and become as revered as he was. Should have been twice as many months though, really. Not that it would have made the film more realistic, alas..

    Exactly! They needed time for the gene therapy.

    And the gene therapy is pure sci-fi. DAD creates one deus ex machina after another.

    I love how they didn't bother to remove Zao's diamonds before the treatment. It's like they expected genes to somehow remove diamonds from his face ;))

    It was the scriptwriters at work. Without the diamonds in his face they wagered he wouldn't look as villainous - or as ridiculous. And DAD is a very ridiculous film. I remember Brosnan saying before the film was released that it was going to be a return to a more serious type of Bond film plot. What we actually got of course was DAF II with some ground MR thrown in for good measure.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,478
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.
  • Posts: 13,263
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.

    Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,484
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.

    Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?

    From say, Poland, for example? 8-}
  • edited February 23 Posts: 13,263
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.

    Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?

    From say, Poland, for example? 8-}

    Hey why not? Heck I'd go for Austrian as the original Blofeld had Germanic blood.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited February 23 Posts: 14,770
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.

    Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?

    From say, Poland, for example? 8-}

    Hey why not? Heck I'd go for Austrian as the original Blofeld had Germanic blood.

    As far as I can recall the original Blofeld was of Greek and Polish ancestry so I see nothing wrong with a Polish actor portraying him. That would be perfect casting, actually. Telly Savalas had the Greek ancestry at least and he remains the most faithful incarnation we've seen in the Bond films thus far. Blofeld should have an Eastern European accent in my book and be suitably "foreign other" in the classic British thriller sense.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,484
    Waltz easily could have been the best screen Blofeld in that sense. Despite being Austrian and not Polish, unlike the others he did at least fit into that "foreign other" trope you describe @Dragonpol and could convincingly portray a lot of the character's traits. He'd obviously be more akin to the later Blofeld after he had significantly dropped weight, but it would be something. It's a damn shame that he was used the way he was.
  • Posts: 7,093
    Waltz easily could have been the best screen Blofeld in that sense. Despite being Austrian and not Polish, unlike the others he did at least fit into that "foreign other" trope you describe @Dragonpol and could convincingly portray a lot of the character's traits. He'd obviously be more akin to the later Blofeld after he had significantly dropped weight, but it would be something. It's a damn shame that he was used the way he was.

    I still believe that with a better script, Waltz could have been the ultimate Blofeld...
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 719
    jobo wrote: »
    Waltz easily could have been the best screen Blofeld in that sense. Despite being Austrian and not Polish, unlike the others he did at least fit into that "foreign other" trope you describe @Dragonpol and could convincingly portray a lot of the character's traits. He'd obviously be more akin to the later Blofeld after he had significantly dropped weight, but it would be something. It's a damn shame that he was used the way he was.

    I still believe that with a better script, Waltz could have been the ultimate Blofeld...

    Don't link his childhood to Bond's (just make him target Bond because 007 had repeatedly ruined his plans), then have a better climax at the actual desert hideout after Bond has escaped from torture (basically something different from the London scenes), and I think you are correct. Waltz could have been terrific. Who knows, he still might be...
  • Posts: 13,263
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.

    Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?

    From say, Poland, for example? 8-}

    Hey why not? Heck I'd go for Austrian as the original Blofeld had Germanic blood.

    As far as I can recall the original Blofeld was of Greek and Polish ancestry so I see nothing wrong with a Polish actor portraying him. That would be perfect casting, actually. Telly Savalas had the Greek ancestry at least and he remains the most faithful incarnation we've seen in the Bond films thus far. Blofeld should have an Eastern European accent in my book and be suitably "foreign other" in the classic British thriller sense.

    I'd rather have that, and have him of middle age, not a young un. But I'd be okay with a Germanic actor, or a Greek actor, heck I'm happy with the casting of Christoph Waltz all things considered.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited February 23 Posts: 14,770
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    SP had the misfortune to follow SF, as well as the Sony leaks. There are other issues (casting, chemistry, the still-shocking underuse of Monica Bellucci). Seriously, the film needed a lot more Bellucci.

    It remains to be seen if SP's reputation will grow in coming years, but I'm hoping NTTD will bolster it.

    I don't know if I'd necessarily agree it was misfortune, unless we're talking strictly about the leaks which definitely coloured many people's opinion of the film before it even came out.

    However, creatively and conceptually, SF gave them free reign to go and tell any sort of story that they wanted to. It really couldn't have been any more ideal for them going forward. However, the story they chose to tell in SP is fundamentally misguided and dramatically inert. If NTTD manages to retroactively improve it, then that will be quite an astonishing achievement.

    Agree about Bellucci though - more of her rarely makes a film worse. ;)

    I agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.

    They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.

    Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?

    From say, Poland, for example? 8-}

    Hey why not? Heck I'd go for Austrian as the original Blofeld had Germanic blood.

    As far as I can recall the original Blofeld was of Greek and Polish ancestry so I see nothing wrong with a Polish actor portraying him. That would be perfect casting, actually. Telly Savalas had the Greek ancestry at least and he remains the most faithful incarnation we've seen in the Bond films thus far. Blofeld should have an Eastern European accent in my book and be suitably "foreign other" in the classic British thriller sense.

    I'd rather have that, and have him of middle age, not a young un. But I'd be okay with a Germanic actor, or a Greek actor, heck I'm happy with the casting of Christoph Waltz all things considered.

    Yes, you're probably right about the Germanic background of Blofeld too. I need to take Thunderball and OHMSS off the shelf to check but I think he was something of a mongrel, shall we say. Fleming also referred to "that lunatic Hitler scream" when describing Blofeld in YOLT and I recall him speaking in German with Irma Bunt in that novel.

    I too am more than happy with the casting of Waltz as Blofeld. On paper, he's a great choice but they should have taken inspiration from the books (specifically TB) where his character and background are well laid down by Fleming over the course of two detailed chapters. The white Persian cat wasn't overused and was introduced rather organically in Spectre. However the origin story of the YOLT facial scar we could have done without I think. It would be rather novel for them to follow the books for once when it comes to Blofeld. We've never exactly seen the Fleming Blofeld on screen, although Telly Savalas was the closest to it.
  • Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Same as the CGI glacial tsunami para-sailing--Brosnan's abdomen simply shouldn't have been presented on screen.

    He looked great everywhere else. Poor judgment on the part of the filmmakers.

    Maybe they should have GGI'd his Guinness belly away?

    They supposedly did touch-ups (I was told that he had “moobs” that needed taking care of and his waist-line).

    That's very interesting. Never heard that before. It still seems to not have been enough for some of the posters on this thread, however! :)

    If it's true, then it's enough for me. Considering none of the posters you're referring to have actually responded to it, yet, your last sentence is a bit silly though! :)

    No, I was merely using foresight as even though Brosnan had been "nipped and tucked" with CGI in that scene the posters here were still complaining that he looked too well fed. So the fact CGI was used didn't need to be known by them. They still think he's too fat for a POW at that point in the film regardless of whether CGI was used or not.

    I am sorry but this is one of the most idiotic things I have read here. Pierce Brosnan was not fat in Die Another Day. He looks like he does in The World Is Not Enough. He is not fat.
    James Bond film are not real life. They are adventure fantasy film. This is the many reasons the James Bond series is so popular.
    Thank you.
  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited February 23 Posts: 14,770
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Same as the CGI glacial tsunami para-sailing--Brosnan's abdomen simply shouldn't have been presented on screen.

    He looked great everywhere else. Poor judgment on the part of the filmmakers.

    Maybe they should have GGI'd his Guinness belly away?

    They supposedly did touch-ups (I was told that he had “moobs” that needed taking care of and his waist-line).

    That's very interesting. Never heard that before. It still seems to not have been enough for some of the posters on this thread, however! :)

    If it's true, then it's enough for me. Considering none of the posters you're referring to have actually responded to it, yet, your last sentence is a bit silly though! :)

    No, I was merely using foresight as even though Brosnan had been "nipped and tucked" with CGI in that scene the posters here were still complaining that he looked too well fed. So the fact CGI was used didn't need to be known by them. They still think he's too fat for a POW at that point in the film regardless of whether CGI was used or not.

    I am sorry but this is one of the most idiotic things I have read here. Pierce Brosnan was not fat in Die Another Day. He looks like he does in The World Is Not Enough. He is not fat.
    James Bond film are not real life. They are adventure fantasy film. This is the many reasons the James Bond series is so popular.
    Thank you.

    Did you actually carefully read what I wrote above? It would appear not or that you did not understand what I was saying if you did. I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. On the subject of the most idiotic things you've read here you could certainly make a good starting point by rereading your own post...
  • edited February 23 Posts: 2,310
    I wasn't happy about Waltz's casting when it was announced and the end result did nothing to change my mind. EON hasn't had much luck in casting Oscar winners and hoping they'll repeat their magic. NTTD might prove an exception, as Bardem did in Skyfall. Waltz's prior performances had already edged very close to camp, and the minute Blofeld goes camp he loses all credibility as a supervillain. If you're going to re-establish him in the 21st century as a seriously threatening villain, for a mass audience mostly too young to be nostalgic about the character, it's better to cast an actor who doesn't have an established image, rather than someone whose screen persona has become so familiar that Saturday Night Live jokes about it on Celebrity Jeopardy. In the past EON was able to brilliantly cast supervillains from under-the-radar character actors (Joseph Wiseman) and out-of-left-field entertainers (Lotte Lenya) and come up with surprising and effective results. In Spectre Walzt was cast in a role that wasn't fully thought out and had to fall back on his mannerisms. That's symptomatic of the overall tiredness and laziness of Spectre, a film more content to reshuffle cliches than rethink them.
  • Posts: 1,576
    Revelator wrote: »
    I wasn't happy about Waltz's casting when it was announced and the end result did nothing to change my mind. EON hasn't had much luck in casting Oscar winners and hoping they'll repeat their magic. NTTD might prove an exception, as Bardem did in Skyfall. Waltz's prior performances had already edged very close to camp, and the minute Blofeld goes camp he loses all credibility as a supervillain. If you're going to re-establish him in the 21st century as a seriously threatening villain, for a mass audience mostly too young to be nostalgic about the character, it's better to cast an actor who doesn't have an established image, rather than someone whose screen persona has become so familiar that Saturday Night Live jokes about it on Celebrity Jeopardy. In the past EON was able to brilliantly cast supervillains from under-the-radar character actors (Joseph Wiseman) and out-of-left-field entertainers (Lotte Lenya) and come up with surprising and effective results. In Spectre Walzt was cast in a role that wasn't fully thought out and had to fall back on his mannerisms. That's symptomatic of the overall tiredness and laziness of Spectre, a film more content to reshuffle cliches than rethink them.

    Well said. I was also wary when Waltz was cast due to his past villain associations and his SP performance did nothing to disprove that when I finally saw it. I may be one of the few who liked the Spectre meeting and found that vibe unsettling. I didn't get any threatening vibe from the face-to-face with Blofeld. He and Bond were almost DAF friendly and that wasn't a good thing.
  • Revelator wrote: »
    In the past EON was able to brilliantly cast supervillains from under-the-radar character actors (Joseph Wiseman) and out-of-left-field entertainers (Lotte Lenya) and come up with surprising and effective results.

    I'd say we still have some of that in latter day Bond in the form of villain performances from Robert Davi, Sophie Marceau, and Mads Mikkelson.

    From the moment I saw Inglourious Basterds, I thought Waltz would make an incredible Bond villain. What I hadn't counted on was that the brilliance in that performance relied heavily upon the masterful direction of Quentin Tarantino (and yes it was campy and comedic and over-the-top, but carefully crafted and fascinating to watch just the same).

    When I realized Waltz was to be playing Blofeld, however, somehow I knew it was an ill fit. The clash between Mendes and Waltz over their vision for the character sealed Oberhauser's tepid fate as much as did any poorly conceived ideas that found their way into the shooting script.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited February 24 Posts: 6,484
    Does anyone know if it was Waltz pushing for the more campy performance or was it Mendes? Obviously Mendes has to take responsibility for it at the end of the day but considering the problems during production it would be interesting to know.

    It'll be curious to compare how Waltz performs with Fukanaga directing - though the performance would likely be different anyway considering the character has been caught and humbled by Bond.

    I was quite excited when he was announced as I wasn't of the opinion that he was a one-trick pony. Unfortunately it didn't work out as hoped.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,478
    Walken is an Oscar winner and did fine in his Bond film.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,069
    echo wrote: »
    Walken is an Oscar winner and did fine in his Bond film.

    He helped make his lesser movie better, same with Christopher Lee.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,484
    echo wrote: »
    Walken is an Oscar winner and did fine in his Bond film.

    He's great in it. He brings ridiculous amounts of energy and prevents the film from flatlining at points.
  • Posts: 2,310
    echo wrote: »
    Walken is an Oscar winner and did fine in his Bond film.

    He was okay, but no more than that. I don't think anyone compiling a list of Walken's best performances would pick his work in AVTAK. That's not wholly Walken's fault--he was playing a cardboard cut-out of a Bond villain and there wasn't much chemistry between him and Moore. They were practically from different planets of acting.
  • Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Same as the CGI glacial tsunami para-sailing--Brosnan's abdomen simply shouldn't have been presented on screen.

    He looked great everywhere else. Poor judgment on the part of the filmmakers.

    Maybe they should have GGI'd his Guinness belly away?

    They supposedly did touch-ups (I was told that he had “moobs” that needed taking care of and his waist-line).

    That's very interesting. Never heard that before. It still seems to not have been enough for some of the posters on this thread, however! :)

    If it's true, then it's enough for me. Considering none of the posters you're referring to have actually responded to it, yet, your last sentence is a bit silly though! :)

    No, I was merely using foresight as even though Brosnan had been "nipped and tucked" with CGI in that scene the posters here were still complaining that he looked too well fed. So the fact CGI was used didn't need to be known by them. They still think he's too fat for a POW at that point in the film regardless of whether CGI was used or not.

    I am sorry but this is one of the most idiotic things I have read here. Pierce Brosnan was not fat in Die Another Day. He looks like he does in The World Is Not Enough. He is not fat.
    James Bond film are not real life. They are adventure fantasy film. This is the many reasons the James Bond series is so popular.
    Thank you.

    Did you actually carefully read what I wrote above? It would appear not or that you did not understand what I was saying if you did. I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. On the subject of the most idiotic things you've read here you could certainly make a good starting point by rereading your own post...

    I am sorry for my misreading. English is not my first language I’m sorry. I get very angry with so many James Bond member who are horrible to Pierce Brosnan and Die Another Day. I have misreading your post.
    We are all suppose to be liking James Bond. We are among friends of James Bond yes?
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 2,907
    When I realized Waltz was to be playing Blofeld, however, somehow I knew it was an ill fit. The clash between Mendes and Waltz over their vision for the character sealed Oberhauser's tepid fate as much as did any poorly conceived ideas that found their way into the shooting script.

    It is well known that Waltz wasn't happy with his final Blofeld incarnation. But I didn't read before that there was a clash between him an Mendes. Which source is telling so?
  • Posts: 3,846
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Same as the CGI glacial tsunami para-sailing--Brosnan's abdomen simply shouldn't have been presented on screen.

    He looked great everywhere else. Poor judgment on the part of the filmmakers.

    Maybe they should have GGI'd his Guinness belly away?

    They supposedly did touch-ups (I was told that he had “moobs” that needed taking care of and his waist-line).

    That's very interesting. Never heard that before. It still seems to not have been enough for some of the posters on this thread, however! :)

    If it's true, then it's enough for me. Considering none of the posters you're referring to have actually responded to it, yet, your last sentence is a bit silly though! :)

    No, I was merely using foresight as even though Brosnan had been "nipped and tucked" with CGI in that scene the posters here were still complaining that he looked too well fed. So the fact CGI was used didn't need to be known by them. They still think he's too fat for a POW at that point in the film regardless of whether CGI was used or not.

    I am sorry but this is one of the most idiotic things I have read here. Pierce Brosnan was not fat in Die Another Day. He looks like he does in The World Is Not Enough. He is not fat.
    James Bond film are not real life. They are adventure fantasy film. This is the many reasons the James Bond series is so popular.
    Thank you.

    Did you actually carefully read what I wrote above? It would appear not or that you did not understand what I was saying if you did. I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. On the subject of the most idiotic things you've read here you could certainly make a good starting point by rereading your own post...

    I am sorry for my misreading. English is not my first language I’m sorry. I get very angry with so many James Bond member who are horrible to Pierce Brosnan and Die Another Day. I have misreading your post.
    We are all suppose to be liking James Bond. We are among friends of James Bond yes?

    Yes, we are all James Bond fans, but am afraid you wont get too many of us defending DAD, who,for most,including myself,consider it the worst of the series!
    Oh, and welcome to the forum!!
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 615
    When I realized Waltz was to be playing Blofeld, however, somehow I knew it was an ill fit. The clash between Mendes and Waltz over their vision for the character sealed Oberhauser's tepid fate as much as did any poorly conceived ideas that found their way into the shooting script.

    It is well known that Waltz wasn't happy with his final Blofeld incarnation. But I didn't read before that there was a clash between him an Mendes. Which source is telling so?

    I don't think this is the first time this came up or the most in depth, but in a recent interview you find linked below Waltz himself said: "I feel more at home with Cary Fukunaga than with Sam Mendes. Fukunaga is insanely analytical and has the technical apparatus in his little finger. He can play on it like a piano and manage the shoot with a self-evident skill. Of course I'm really excited to see the result." and "You know, it's my job, and it was my job before. I see an honorable cause in the conscientious exercise of the profession. I don't always have to agree with a director to do this well. I am only a small believer in conviction."

    Hardly proof of a "clash", but it's clear he isn't happy with his Blofeld.
    Contraband wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    New interview with Waltz in German:

    https://www.gq-magazin.de/entertainment/artikel/christoph-waltz-corona-diese-leute-die-sich-querdenker-nennen-denken-entlang-des-brettes-das-sie-vorm-kopf-haben

    Talks about his thoughts on the rumours of the film going to streaming ('it's as stupid to see Bond on a small screen as it is to see a TV series on the big screen'), praising the hell out of Fukunaga saying he felt more at home working with him than Mendes, and that there was a small screening of the film for the cast in London which he couldn't make...

    de>eng:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://www.gq-magazin.de/entertainment/artikel/christoph-waltz-corona-diese-leute-die-sich-querdenker-nennen-denken-entlang-des-brettes-das-sie-vorm-kopf-haben

  • Posts: 7,093
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Same as the CGI glacial tsunami para-sailing--Brosnan's abdomen simply shouldn't have been presented on screen.

    He looked great everywhere else. Poor judgment on the part of the filmmakers.

    Maybe they should have GGI'd his Guinness belly away?

    They supposedly did touch-ups (I was told that he had “moobs” that needed taking care of and his waist-line).

    That's very interesting. Never heard that before. It still seems to not have been enough for some of the posters on this thread, however! :)

    If it's true, then it's enough for me. Considering none of the posters you're referring to have actually responded to it, yet, your last sentence is a bit silly though! :)

    No, I was merely using foresight as even though Brosnan had been "nipped and tucked" with CGI in that scene the posters here were still complaining that he looked too well fed. So the fact CGI was used didn't need to be known by them. They still think he's too fat for a POW at that point in the film regardless of whether CGI was used or not.

    I am sorry but this is one of the most idiotic things I have read here. Pierce Brosnan was not fat in Die Another Day. He looks like he does in The World Is Not Enough. He is not fat.
    James Bond film are not real life. They are adventure fantasy film. This is the many reasons the James Bond series is so popular.
    Thank you.

    Did you actually carefully read what I wrote above? It would appear not or that you did not understand what I was saying if you did. I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. On the subject of the most idiotic things you've read here you could certainly make a good starting point by rereading your own post...

    I am sorry for my misreading. English is not my first language I’m sorry. I get very angry with so many James Bond member who are horrible to Pierce Brosnan and Die Another Day. I have misreading your post.
    We are all suppose to be liking James Bond. We are among friends of James Bond yes?

    Yes, we are all James Bond fans, but am afraid you wont get too many of us defending DAD, who,for most,including myself,consider it the worst of the series!
    Oh, and welcome to the forum!!


    There are two ways of looking at it:

    1) I am a Bond fan, therefore I should love every Bond film and never criticise anything.

    Or...

    2) I am a Bond fan, therefore I react emotionally when they make Bond films that are bad, embarrassing or put the series in a bad light.

    My position is mainly the second. It really upsets me when people involved with Bond films mess up whether it's due to laziness or horrible decision making.

    It is also curious the double standards some fans express. Some of the same people who would claim that any criticism of the Brosnan era is "unbondian" will have no problem with lashing out against Spectre or Skyfall themselves...
  • edited February 24 Posts: 1,017
    jobo wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    royale65 wrote: »
    Same as the CGI glacial tsunami para-sailing--Brosnan's abdomen simply shouldn't have been presented on screen.

    He looked great everywhere else. Poor judgment on the part of the filmmakers.

    Maybe they should have GGI'd his Guinness belly away?

    They supposedly did touch-ups (I was told that he had “moobs” that needed taking care of and his waist-line).

    That's very interesting. Never heard that before. It still seems to not have been enough for some of the posters on this thread, however! :)

    If it's true, then it's enough for me. Considering none of the posters you're referring to have actually responded to it, yet, your last sentence is a bit silly though! :)

    No, I was merely using foresight as even though Brosnan had been "nipped and tucked" with CGI in that scene the posters here were still complaining that he looked too well fed. So the fact CGI was used didn't need to be known by them. They still think he's too fat for a POW at that point in the film regardless of whether CGI was used or not.

    I am sorry but this is one of the most idiotic things I have read here. Pierce Brosnan was not fat in Die Another Day. He looks like he does in The World Is Not Enough. He is not fat.
    James Bond film are not real life. They are adventure fantasy film. This is the many reasons the James Bond series is so popular.
    Thank you.

    Did you actually carefully read what I wrote above? It would appear not or that you did not understand what I was saying if you did. I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. On the subject of the most idiotic things you've read here you could certainly make a good starting point by rereading your own post...

    I am sorry for my misreading. English is not my first language I’m sorry. I get very angry with so many James Bond member who are horrible to Pierce Brosnan and Die Another Day. I have misreading your post.
    We are all suppose to be liking James Bond. We are among friends of James Bond yes?

    Yes, we are all James Bond fans, but am afraid you wont get too many of us defending DAD, who,for most,including myself,consider it the worst of the series!
    Oh, and welcome to the forum!!


    There are two ways of looking at it:

    1) I am a Bond fan, therefore I should love every Bond film and never criticise anything.

    Or...

    2) I am a Bond fan, therefore I react emotionally when they make Bond films that are bad, embarrassing or put the series in a bad light.

    My position is mainly the second. It really upsets me when people involved with Bond films mess up whether it's due to laziness or horrible decision making.

    It is also curious the double standards some fans express. Some of the same people who would claim that any criticism of the Brosnan era is "unbondian" will have no problem with lashing out against Spectre or Skyfall themselves...

    I think I can side with both positions in some sense. As a happily vocal fan of Spectre, some of the hyperbole surrounding it (as well as DAD, QOS, and whatever else) can just become ridiculous.

    All 24 EON-produced Bond films are entertaining, competently produced movies. Not everything is everybody's bag though, and that's fine. You don't have to like an invisible car (though I might say it's not a lot sillier than an underwater car), but it's not like the writers and producers were unaware of how ridiculous it is. You don't have to like the editing in QOS (though I think it's beautifully done and serves a thematic purpose), but it's not like the filmmakers screwed up. That's exactly what they were going for. It's just not for you.

    Criticizing and picking apart Bond films is good fun, and there's plenty of material to overanalyze, but when you start hearing people talking about how this or that movie is unwatchable, emotionally abusive torture, it's really worth little more than an eyeroll.

    Especially given how many hated films, or aspects of them, have very clear points of comparison in more beloved movies.
Sign In or Register to comment.