Controversial opinions about Bond films

1173174176178179704

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    For me, that scene is worth its weight in gold just because of Barry's magnificent "Gumbold's Safe". This is a textbook example of how a score can create tension in an otherwise 'dull' scene. That score makes the scene.

    I am always reminded of it during the "Night at the Opera" sequence in QoS, which imho sounds very much like that, with the building repeating motifs.

    Both actually remind me of Ravel's Bolero, strangely (one of my all time fave's).
  • Posts: 7,424
    bondjames wrote: »
    For me, that scene is worth its weight in gold just because of Barry's magnificent "Gumbold's Safe". This is a textbook example of how a score can create tension in an otherwise 'dull' scene. That score makes the scene.

    I am always reminded of it during the "Night at the Opera" sequence in QoS, which imho sounds very much like that, with the building repeating motifs.

    Both actually remind me of Ravel's Bolero, strangely (one of my all time fave's).


    So you´re into minimalism then?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    For me, that scene is worth its weight in gold just because of Barry's magnificent "Gumbold's Safe". This is a textbook example of how a score can create tension in an otherwise 'dull' scene. That score makes the scene.

    I am always reminded of it during the "Night at the Opera" sequence in QoS, which imho sounds very much like that, with the building repeating motifs.

    Both actually remind me of Ravel's Bolero, strangely (one of my all time fave's).


    So you´re into minimalism then?
    I'm not a musically trained person, so I can't explain what it is I like about these tracks, but I suppose you could say that. I've always believed 'less is more' in most art forms, including design. Keep it simple but distinctive & memorable rather than over complicate.

    Barry in particular had this knack for repeating memorable motifs and rhythms to create suspense, sometimes by letting it build (like in the aforementioned Gumbold's Safe) and sometimes just keeping it at the same tonal level. I wish more composers would do that. Bolero is a gem to my ears, even though I realize it's not seen as a masterpiece in the classical field.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    The side-whistle, the double-take pigeon, the vanishing Austin Martin, Connery turning Japanese, the laser fight in space, Mommy...was...verybad, Christmas, the Beach Boys snowboarding and more such stuff...

    ...all belong to the Bond franchise and add to the overall image of Bond, as the cinematic Bond also, always has been about various forms of humour.

    Perhaps, but the CGI tsunami from DAD I can probably do without...


    Well its something i can turn a blind eye on, its a small flaw in a very entretatining Bond flick. Just like Christmas Jones in the world is not enough


    That used to be the deal breaker for me, I couldn't fairly judge the film du to that insult (Bond was ever the epitome of genuine stunts performed by genuine stuntmen). But now it hardly bothers me at all. I just kind of gloss over that bit (and most of the finale). Most of the rest of DIE ANOTHER DAY is a wonderful Bond film. It's moved from last to high teens in my rankings.

    it's like the overused back projection in Goldfinger, while it is regrettable that they weren't on location, it adds to the nostalgia for me, somehow it belongs to the movie :) and doesn't hurt it very much if at all.
  • Posts: 107
    QOS > SP
  • BennyBenny Classified Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 13,146
    Chang wrote: »
    QOS > SP

    I'm sorry what does that mean?
    It's not an opinion.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,998
    Benny wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    QOS > SP

    I'm sorry what does that mean?
    It's not an opinion.
    He means QOS "is greater than" SP.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Benny wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    QOS > SP

    I'm sorry what does that mean?
    It's not an opinion.
    He means QOS "is greater than" SP.

    Ah, thanks for clarifying that. So it was a joke. Good then.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    The side-whistle, the double-take pigeon, the vanishing Austin Martin, Connery turning Japanese, the laser fight in space, Mommy...was...verybad, Christmas, the Beach Boys snowboarding and more such stuff...

    ...all belong to the Bond franchise and add to the overall image of Bond, as the cinematic Bond also, always has been about various forms of humour.

    Perhaps, but the CGI tsunami from DAD I can probably do without...


    Well its something i can turn a blind eye on, its a small flaw in a very entretatining Bond flick. Just like Christmas Jones in the world is not enough


    That used to be the deal breaker for me, I couldn't fairly judge the film du to that insult (Bond was ever the epitome of genuine stunts performed by genuine stuntmen). But now it hardly bothers me at all. I just kind of gloss over that bit (and most of the finale). Most of the rest of DIE ANOTHER DAY is a wonderful Bond film. It's moved from last to high teens in my rankings.

    it's like the overused back projection in Goldfinger, while it is regrettable that they weren't on location, it adds to the nostalgia for me, somehow it belongs to the movie :) and doesn't hurt it very much if at all.

    Can't believe what I'm reading here.

    Most of DAD is a wonderful film?

    The first 20 minutes is maybe half decent but after that it jumps off a cliff so vertiginous even Rick Sylvester wouldn't have the cojones to jump off it. In rapid succession you've got Jinx, sub Carry On double entendres, Madonna, hammy overacting from Toby Stephens (although I blame Trannyhori for that), Jinx, the invisible car, Mr Kil, 'Yo Mamma', a vaguely interesting premise of a traitor thrown away in a risible third act comprising almost entirely of bad CGI and cheese, Jinx, Bond getting electrocuted with Force lightning, Robocop suit and Jinx.

    Merely removing the tsunami scene is just cutting away one of the more unsightly tumours on the patient's face. It doesn't address the fact that their entire body is riddled with terminal cancer.

    To equate the tsunami scene with back projection in a 60s film when someone is driving is hardly fair either. Rear projection was an industry standard back then and while annoying it really only dates a film rather than turn it into a laughing stock.

    The tsunami 'special' FX (and I'm using 'special' in the 'Special Olympics' sense there) came out 11 years after T2, 9 years after Jurassic Park, 5 years after Titanic, 3 years after The Phantom Menace and in the same year as Attack of the Clones! Yet while James Cameron and ILM were setting the benchmark in CGI EON managed to find a company who were about 25 years behind who turned in graphics that would shame a ZX Spectrum game.

    Given the state of CGI in 2002 the tsunami scene is the equivalent of having rear projection in SP as cringeworthy as the end of FRWL when Bond waves goodbye to the canister of film. Would just be downright embarassing for everyone involved - except that Kiwi bird who Lee must've been shagging (it's the only rational explanation for her being employed) who actually seems proud of her work in the film! Those SFX making of extras on the DVD are comedy gold.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,406
    Well said Wiz. The CGI in DAD is bloody awful for it's time. Same can't be said of GF.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I agree. Well said @Wiz. There is far more wrong critically with DAD than the CGI. That is only the most glaring fault, & you have rightly pointed out most of the other absurd & farcical elements in this obvious (imho) Austin Powers wannabe masquerading as a 40th anniversary Bond tribute.

    Having said all that, I'll admit to enjoying the film as mindless entertainment, after a few pints and when my critical side is dimmed.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,998
    Benny wrote: »
    Chang wrote: »
    QOS > SP

    I'm sorry what does that mean?
    It's not an opinion.
    He means QOS "is greater than" SP.

    Ah, thanks for clarifying that. So it was a joke. Good then.
    It would have to be a joke, one hopes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, I agree. Well said @Wiz. There is far more wrong critically with DAD than the CGI. That is only the most glaring fault, & you have rightly pointed out most of the other absurd & farcical elements in this obvious (imho) Austin Powers wannabe masquerading as a 40th anniversary Bond tribute.

    Having said all that, I'll admit to enjoying the film as mindless entertainment, after a few pints and when my critical side is dimmed.

    Sure there is a lot more to be concerned about than the CGI (Jinx, dialogue, Madonna), but I was letting too much of that interfere with a film that I can great enjoyment out of. Believe me, I was DAD's harshest critic on her for a long time. It was stuck in the rear. You can say I'm wrong, or what have you, but the truth is I have a great time watching most of the film these days.
    Me too. It's great fun. Very entertaining from start to finish, which is more than can be said for some other Bond films. That much I must give it credit for.
  • Posts: 14,113
    Here's something controversial in light of the previous debate: rear projectors in early Bond movies are fine. Really they are fine. They are perfectly fine.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Here's something controversial in light of the previous debate: rear projectors in early Bond movies are fine. Really they are fine. They are perfectly fine.

    They are really, really, very perfectly fine fine. Really. Believe it. NOW!!
    I said this the other day, for me those things add to the overall nostalgia with old movies of that era. And think about it, some directors even choose the back projection tool as a visual style (Sin City for example).
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,184
    The only Back projection I don't like is the Dr. No car chase. But I'm fine with everything else.
  • Posts: 14,113
    Even the back projection of the car chase in DN is part of the charm.

    Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,998
    Murdock wrote: »
    The only Back projection I don't like is the Dr. No car chase. But I'm fine with everything else.

    Agreed. The problem was with the size of the car in the background. Bond wound have to have been driving a Power Wheels for that to be the correct scaling.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    There were some pretty cheesy explosions in DAF as I recall. Something in China when the laser hits it. Absolutely awful. That and the DAD surf CGI were the pits. The rest is tolerable for me including the back projection in the earlier films.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Even the back projection of the car chase in DN is part of the charm.

    Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.

    Why are they primitive?
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    Even the back projection of the car chase in DN is part of the charm.

    Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.

    Why are they primitive?

    They are honestly just a bit basic compared to what we would end up having later. The dragon scene for instance is supposed to be the film's "big" action sequence. All of the action would pale even next to its immediate successor.

    DN has many strengths but action definitely isn't one of them. I was feeling momentarily excited when Bond traded blows with Dr. No but I blinked and it was over. Now I can regard all the action with a sort of charm but it's definitely quite primitive.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,243
    I just appreciate Dr No for what it is. It was made 54 years ago. Set the tone beautifully for what follows, however the characterisation of Bond has been diluted over the years where action dominates, as early as 1965 when Connery felt the same
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,243
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think that's controversial, I think that's just plain fact.

    If you're replying to my post, I was responding to the comments above about DN's back projection and primitive action

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984

    They are honestly just a bit basic compared to what we would end up having later. The dragon scene for instance is supposed to be the film's "big" action sequence. All of the action would pale even next to its immediate successor.

    DN has many strengths but action definitely isn't one of them. I was feeling momentarily excited when Bond traded blows with Dr. No but I blinked and it was over. Now I can regard all the action with a sort of charm but it's definitely quite primitive.

    Indeed.
  • Posts: 14,113
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Even the back projection of the car chase in DN is part of the charm.

    Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.

    Why are they primitive?

    They are honestly just a bit basic compared to what we would end up having later. The dragon scene for instance is supposed to be the film's "big" action sequence. All of the action would pale even next to its immediate successor.

    DN has many strengths but action definitely isn't one of them. I was feeling momentarily excited when Bond traded blows with Dr. No but I blinked and it was over. Now I can regard all the action with a sort of charm but it's definitely quite primitive.

    And I think the action is fine. Because it does not get in the way of plot, atmosphere, character(s), etc. And it's rather primitive aspect actually enhances the film's charm and strengths.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Even the back projection of the car chase in DN is part of the charm.

    Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.

    Why are they primitive?

    They are honestly just a bit basic compared to what we would end up having later. The dragon scene for instance is supposed to be the film's "big" action sequence. All of the action would pale even next to its immediate successor.

    DN has many strengths but action definitely isn't one of them. I was feeling momentarily excited when Bond traded blows with Dr. No but I blinked and it was over. Now I can regard all the action with a sort of charm but it's definitely quite primitive.

    And I think the action is fine. Because it does not get in the way of plot, atmosphere, character(s), etc. And it's rather primitive aspect actually enhances the film's charm and strengths.
    Yes, I agree. These are not 'throwback elements' inserted as 'tropes' to recall the past (unlike in some other Bond films) but rather elements that reflect the time that the film was made in. They work within the context of that era perfectly.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Here's something controversial in light of the previous debate: rear projectors in early Bond movies are fine. Really they are fine. They are perfectly fine.

    Disagree with this. The rear projection in the early Bonds (particularly DN car chase, FRWL final scene, close ups of Laz in the ski chase) looks shit and I can't believe there's anyone out there who wouldn't want to swap it for something better.

    I'm fine with it because that's the best they could do at the time but they are far from 'perfectly fine'.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 14,113
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Here's something controversial in light of the previous debate: rear projectors in early Bond movies are fine. Really they are fine. They are perfectly fine.

    Disagree with this. The rear projection in the early Bonds (particularly DN car chase, FRWL final scene, close ups of Laz in the ski chase) looks shit and I can't believe there's anyone out there who wouldn't want to swap it for something better.

    I'm fine with it because that's the best they could do at the time but they are far from 'perfectly fine'.

    I wouldn't want them now, obviously. What I mean is that it is what they had at the time and thus they are perfectly fine. People should stop equating modern/recent to superior because technology has evolved.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 1,817
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Even the back projection of the car chase in DN is part of the charm.

    Another controversial opinion: the action scenes in DN, however primitive, are fine.

    Why are they primitive?

    They are honestly just a bit basic compared to what we would end up having later. The dragon scene for instance is supposed to be the film's "big" action sequence. All of the action would pale even next to its immediate successor.

    DN has many strengths but action definitely isn't one of them. I was feeling momentarily excited when Bond traded blows with Dr. No but I blinked and it was over. Now I can regard all the action with a sort of charm but it's definitely quite primitive.

    And I think the action is fine. Because it does not get in the way of plot, atmosphere, character(s), etc. And it's rather primitive aspect actually enhances the film's charm and strengths.
    Yes, I agree. These are not 'throwback elements' inserted as 'tropes' to recall the past (unlike in some other Bond films) but rather elements that reflect the time that the film was made in. They work within the context of that era perfectly.

    But DN couldn't have throwbacks to anything, it was the first...

    But I do get your point. It is useful when Bond films serve as time capsules. Connery films perfectly reflect their era. It is unusual however that when you compare the action to what came just one year later in FRWL, DN is blown out of the water. Although, double the budget probably did help.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,243
    Also in DN they probably didn't want to do anything TOO extravagent like drowning the villain in bird crap.

    It was quite groundbreaking at the time was it not?
Sign In or Register to comment.