›

Common misconceptions about Bond movies

123457

Comments

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    No doubt a lot of the wacky action stuff pre-dates Brosnan. But I do point to house years as to when the character became an indestructible killing machine.
    That's Craig.

    B-)

    He's far more vulnerable than any Bond before him though.

    See: Skyfall.

    He is far from indestructible in Skyfall. In fact right after the PTS he is completely broken.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited December 2015 Posts: 13,894
    He survived that fall. I wouldn't say he's more vulnerable than any Bond before him, he's more indestructible than any Bond before him. Brosnan might have run around a lot with machine guns, but Craig, it would seem, could take a nuclear blast to the face, and shake it off Wile E. Coyote style.


    I don't know if it'been mentioned yet, but the "I've been expecting you, Mr Bond", while pretending to stroke a cat, always bugged me. Blofeld never said that, Stromberg did, and he didn't have a cat.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    He survived the fall as humans can sometimes survive such ordeal. He is in a poor state after, very much broken actually. Both in CR and SF, Bond actually gets very broken physically and emotionally.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,985
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He survived the fall as humans can sometimes survive such ordeal. He is in a poor state after, very much broken actually. Both in CR and SF, Bond actually gets very broken physically and emotionally.

    I think Bond became physically and emotionally indestructible early on (FRWL-YOLT, DAF) and most of Moore's tenure (save perhaps the MR centrifuge and FYEO). Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig all played it much more vulnerable.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    The big misconception that bothers me is that Bond films are action movies, when they're really not. Yes, they do have action, but the majority of them have a lot less action than the general public seems to think. Lethal Weapon these films are not.

    I agree whole heartedly, Fleming called them "Thrillers". The original EON productions were "Adventure" films. When they became standard action fare in the '90s is when the series hit it's low point.
    My friend, you forget the likes of Bond fighting on the outside of an airplane hull it seems....
    :))

    Remind me again which Bond film of the 90s it is where Bond fights on the outside of a plane?

    He briefly hangs on to the outside of a plane in GE but the fight happens inside. Other than that though...?



  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    The Bond codename theory is probably the worst and most painful to think of (right now, at least).
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    I'm surprised to see how many people see James Bond not even as a name but a label. For them he could be gay, or a woman or whatever. Like Cherry Coke is to Coca-Cola.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,985
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    The big misconception that bothers me is that Bond films are action movies, when they're really not. Yes, they do have action, but the majority of them have a lot less action than the general public seems to think. Lethal Weapon these films are not.

    I agree whole heartedly, Fleming called them "Thrillers". The original EON productions were "Adventure" films. When they became standard action fare in the '90s is when the series hit it's low point.
    My friend, you forget the likes of Bond fighting on the outside of an airplane hull it seems....
    :))

    Remind me again which Bond film of the 90s it is where Bond fights on the outside of a plane?

    He briefly hangs on to the outside of a plane in GE but the fight happens inside. Other than that though...?

    I thought this was an OP reference?
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Or the plane fight from TLD ?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The comment was misunderstood.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    The big misconception that bothers me is that Bond films are action movies, when they're really not. Yes, they do have action, but the majority of them have a lot less action than the general public seems to think. Lethal Weapon these films are not.

    I agree whole heartedly, Fleming called them "Thrillers". The original EON productions were "Adventure" films. When they became standard action fare in the '90s is when the series hit it's low point.
    My friend, you forget the likes of Bond fighting on the outside of an airplane hull it seems....
    :))

    Remind me again which Bond film of the 90s it is where Bond fights on the outside of a plane?

    He briefly hangs on to the outside of a plane in GE but the fight happens inside. Other than that though...?

    I thought this was an OP reference?

    Well then why has @chrisisall put 'in the 90s' in bold to make his point.

    I've never yet been able to improve on how Partridge himself puts it: 'Stop getting Bond wrong!'
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Well then why has @chrisisall put 'in the 90s' in bold to make his point.
    To highlight the perceived mistake. The 80's was where Bond started the really crazy stuff, OP specifically IMO.

  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    Never Say Never Again isn't really a proper James Bond movie, or it shouldn't count as a Bond movie.


  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    Birdleson wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Never Say Never Again isn't really a proper James Bond movie, or it shouldn't count as a Bond movie.


    I wouldn't call that a misconception, I'd call that a matter of opinion. Even on these boards some of us like to include it in discussions and rankings, others won't even give it that much of an airing. Regardless, it is not an official EON production. Retroactively acquiring the rights does not alter the fact that it was made by an unaffiliated (by that point) competitor, without the usual hands and minds having any say in the quality and direction of the project.

    So, I consider it to be one of those Bond things that are up to the viewer (I plan on starting thread in that vein sometime soon). If you want to count it, fine, but EON and most of Bond fandom are not in the same place.

    You are perpetuating the misconception.

    Never Say Never Again is a James Bond movie.

    Let's recap. It is a movie about a character called James Bond, who has the code designation of 007, and he works for the British secret service, with a secretary called Moneypenny, a boss called M and a gadget-master called Q, and it echos the plot of Thunderball. James Bond is played by Sean Connery. It isn't a matter of opinion as to whether it is a James Bond movie. It is a James Bond movie.

    There is also nothing unofficial about it. Of course EON want to dismiss it and claim only their movies count, but that is a distortion of reality. It is as irrelevant as to who produced it as it is irrelevant who produced multiple Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan movies.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    It's a cheap knockoff Bond movie. EON is the quality standard. ;)
  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's a cheap knockoff Bond movie. EON is the quality standard. ;)

    I agree with that.

  • GettlerGettler
    Posts: 315
    As far as canon is concerned it never happened. Then again, almost all the bond films can stand on their own. Almost all.
  • BounineBounine
    Posts: 2,598
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's a cheap knockoff Bond movie. EON is the quality standard. ;)

    A "cheap knockoff Bond movie"? Can't say I agree with you there. :) I think that NSNA is a decent Bond film and it is a Bond film. I like it better than any of the Brosnan movies and QOS. Probably better than Diamonds Are Forever too. The first half of Diamonds is good but in the last half it takes a nose dive.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Bounine wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's a cheap knockoff Bond movie. EON is the quality standard. ;)

    A "cheap knockoff Bond movie"? Can't say I agree with you there. :) I think that NSNA is a decent Bond film and it is a Bond film. I like it better than any of the Brosnan movies and QOS. Probably better than Diamonds Are Forever too. The first half of Diamonds is good but in the last half it takes a nose dive.
    You may like it better than other Bond movies but it doesn't change the fact it's a cheap bootleg remake of the far superior Thunderball.
  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    Birdleson wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    BondBug wrote: »
    Never Say Never Again isn't really a proper James Bond movie, or it shouldn't count as a Bond movie.


    I wouldn't call that a misconception, I'd call that a matter of opinion. Even on these boards some of us like to include it in discussions and rankings, others won't even give it that much of an airing. Regardless, it is not an official EON production. Retroactively acquiring the rights does not alter the fact that it was made by an unaffiliated (by that point) competitor, without the usual hands and minds having any say in the quality and direction of the project.

    So, I consider it to be one of those Bond things that are up to the viewer (I plan on starting thread in that vein sometime soon). If you want to count it, fine, but EON and most of Bond fandom are not in the same place.

    You are perpetuating the misconception.

    Never Say Never Again is a James Bond movie.

    Let's recap. It is a movie about a character called James Bond, who has the code designation of 007, and he works for the British secret service, with a secretary called Moneypenny, a boss called M and a gadget-master called Q, and it echos the plot of Thunderball. James Bond is played by Sean Connery. It isn't a matter of opinion as to whether it is a James Bond movie. It is a James Bond movie.

    There is also nothing unofficial about it. Of course EON want to dismiss it and claim only their movies count, but that is a distortion of reality. It is as irrelevant as to who produced it as it is irrelevant who produced multiple Sherlock Holmes or Tarzan movies.

    But that wasn't the point in your original statement that I was taking issue with. The question wasn't whether or not it was a James Bond movie, obviously it is. It is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is a "proper James Bond movie".

    If you agree it is "obviously" a James Bond movie, why would you think it is legitimate to say it is "not a proper James Bond movie?" What is improper about it, just because it happens to be made by different producers from the other movies?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I think EON have done a very good job of appropriating the word 'official' for their own purposes over the years.

    Surely 'official' only pertains to having the legal legitimacy to make a Bond film? This is what Kevin McClory had in 1983. 'Unofficial' would pertain to stuff like fan films on YouTube.

    EON seem to be saying that only they have any right to make Bond films. Well that may be the case now but it certainly wasn't at the time. For that reason CR 67 has just as much claim to be called 'official'.

    Don't get me wrong - the law is an ass and the millions McClory received for minimal input on the backs of Fleming and Whittingham and also EON's groundwork for the first three films is shocking. But that does not change the fact that in law NSNA is every bit as official as any of EON's films.

    As to the term 'proper' - I presume people are defining this as all the EON bells and whistles such as the gunbarrel, Bond theme, Q scenes etc?

    Yet given the previous 3 films before SP featured serious liberties being taken with the GB, barely any use of the Bond theme and two films with no Q scenes then are CR, QOS and SF any more or less 'proper'?

    If you take out the crappy 007 logos and shite title track then what is the difference between the opening shot of the jungle in NSNA and the opening over the lake in QOS?

    Seems to me that people are using the term 'proper' as a knee jerk catch all word to describe anything not made by EON.

    Certainly NSNA is way down near the bottom of my list but let's be fair it does have some good moments and never plumbs such embarassing depths as invisible cars and 'Yo momma'.

    Sean is on superb form, Fatima is only bettered by Fiona and Xenia in the femme fatale role and I must say I prefer Brandauer's unhinged Largo to Celi's rather one note effort.

    Yes the action isn't anywhere near the miracles EON were performing in OP and the score is worse even than Serra's but there is still plenty to enjoy.

    And at the end of the day this thread is about popular misconceptions and I don't think the public at large have the first clue that NSNA has some sort of mongrel pedigree. To them it's a film starring Sean Connery as James Bond so of course it's proper Bond film.


  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Thats how many on here see it. I like the film well enough. I don't know if I'd personally consider it not "proper", but I can see where that comes from. I guess what my point is is that it is up to us as individual fans to decide what we consider the definition of a "proper James Bond movie" is. Criteria may vary, "proper" isn't really a precise, well-defined concept.

    I agree with you, in that I understand how audience members and fans may consider it "not a proper James Bond movie," but that view is the result of a marketing ploy by the producers to dismiss it as something less than the movies they make. That is why I say it is a misconception.
  • BondBugBondBug
    Posts: 158
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    I think EON have done a very good job of appropriating the word 'official' for their own purposes over the years.

    Surely 'official' only pertains to having the legal legitimacy to make a Bond film? This is what Kevin McClory had in 1983. 'Unofficial' would pertain to stuff like fan films on YouTube.

    EON seem to be saying that only they have any right to make Bond films. Well that may be the case now but it certainly wasn't at the time. For that reason CR 67 has just as much claim to be called 'official'.

    Don't get me wrong - the law is an ass and the millions McClory received for minimal input on the backs of Fleming and Whittingham and also EON's groundwork for the first three films is shocking. But that does not change the fact that in law NSNA is every bit as official as any of EON's films.

    As to the term 'proper' - I presume people are defining this as all the EON bells and whistles such as the gunbarrel, Bond theme, Q scenes etc?

    Yet given the previous 3 films before SP featured serious liberties being taken with the GB, barely any use of the Bond theme and two films with no Q scenes then are CR, QOS and SF any more or less 'proper'?

    If you take out the crappy 007 logos and shite title track then what is the difference between the opening shot of the jungle in NSNA and the opening over the lake in QOS?

    Seems to me that people are using the term 'proper' as a knee jerk catch all word to describe anything not made by EON.

    Certainly NSNA is way down near the bottom of my list but let's be fair it does have some good moments and never plumbs such embarassing depths as invisible cars and 'Yo momma'.

    Sean is on superb form, Fatima is only bettered by Fiona and Xenia in the femme fatale role and I must say I prefer Brandauer's unhinged Largo to Celi's rather one note effort.

    Yes the action isn't anywhere near the miracles EON were performing in OP and the score is worse even than Serra's but there is still plenty to enjoy.

    And at the end of the day this thread is about popular misconceptions and I don't think the public at large have the first clue that NSNA has some sort of mongrel pedigree. To them it's a film starring Sean Connery as James Bond so of course it's proper Bond film.


    A very good assessment.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    I own DAD, but I don't own NSNA. That's my story & I'm sticking to it.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    "Proper" Bond wouldn't dress like this. ;)
    NSNA-JB0014SCdungarees.jpg
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Compare his performance Outland (made just two years earlier) to that of NSNA. NSNA was clearly just a paycheck.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    Murdock wrote: »
    "Proper" Bond wouldn't dress like this. ;)
    NSNA-JB0014SCdungarees.jpg

    NSNA Bond was going to swap his DB5 for a Combine Harvester.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    Murdock wrote: »
    "Proper" Bond wouldn't dress like this. ;)
    NSNA-JB0014SCdungarees.jpg

    My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    That must be where they got the idea for the
    minion's uniform ? ;)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Beedo-minion.png
    Bee Bee do! Bee Bee do! Bee bee, bee bee do! =))
Sign In or Register to comment.