›

Controversial opinions about Bond films

1…202203205207208…705

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Its easier to buy into the submersible Lotus than the invisble Vanquish! The latter is just plain stupid , like Bond stopping his heartbeat! This is James Bond..not Derek Flint!

    All correct! Exactly. I quite like the Lotus. My issues with TSWLM are mainly tone....Jaws dropping the stone, comedy music when driving the van through the desert. The Lotus is fine.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,990
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Its easier to buy into the submersible Lotus than the invisble Vanquish! The latter is just plain stupid , like Bond stopping his heartbeat! This is James Bond..not Derek Flint!

    All correct! Exactly. I quite like the Lotus. My issues with TSWLM are mainly tone....Jaws dropping the stone, comedy music when driving the van through the desert. The Lotus is fine.

    I agree but some of these were shrewd. Kids love when Jaws drops the stone on his foot--and that cements that audience. Ditto some of the goofy stuff in MR. Don't forget that the '70s were the era when teenagers started seeing blockbusters over and over and over.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,127
    echo wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Its easier to buy into the submersible Lotus than the invisble Vanquish! The latter is just plain stupid , like Bond stopping his heartbeat! This is James Bond..not Derek Flint!

    All correct! Exactly. I quite like the Lotus. My issues with TSWLM are mainly tone....Jaws dropping the stone, comedy music when driving the van through the desert. The Lotus is fine.

    I agree but some of these were shrewd. Kids love when Jaws drops the stone on his foot--and that cements that audience. Ditto some of the goofy stuff in MR. Don't forget that the '70s were the era when teenagers started seeing blockbusters over and over and over.

    Very true.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    35 years after The Spy Who Loved Me somebody glides a car that leaks water inside just under the surface of the water and this is meant to illustrate that the Lotus was leaps and bounds more technologically swallowable in 1977 than the camouflaged Aston was in 2002? Agree to disagree here, but if that makes my opinion controversial then I'm in the right thread!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,127
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    35 years after The Spy Who Loved Me somebody glides a car that leaks water inside just under the surface of the water and this is meant to illustrate that the Lotus was leaps and bounds more technologically swallowable in 1977 than the camouflaged Aston was in 2002? Agree to disagree here, but if that makes my opinion controversial then I'm in the right thread!

    They are equally absurd concepts. I think people get older and become more cynical. What seemed creative and exciting in 1977 was stupid by 2002. It has nothing to do with feasibility.
  • Some_Kind_Of_HeroSome_Kind_Of_Hero
    Posts: 6,844
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    35 years after The Spy Who Loved Me somebody glides a car that leaks water inside just under the surface of the water and this is meant to illustrate that the Lotus was leaps and bounds more technologically swallowable in 1977 than the camouflaged Aston was in 2002? Agree to disagree here, but if that makes my opinion controversial then I'm in the right thread!

    They are equally absurd concepts. I think people get older and become more cynical. What seemed creative and exciting in 1977 was stupid by 2002. It has nothing to do with feasibility.

    Absolutely. There are equally absurd concepts, but for me they are both the right kind of absurd for James Bond. The world of Bond is always one step into the future. We may not exactly have the submersible Lotus yet—certainly not as it's represented in the film—and will likely not have the invisible Aston for some time—though reflective camouflaging technology comes close today—but they are both a step into the future and that's the kind of absurd I can handle within the more outlandish Bond films.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,127
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    35 years after The Spy Who Loved Me somebody glides a car that leaks water inside just under the surface of the water and this is meant to illustrate that the Lotus was leaps and bounds more technologically swallowable in 1977 than the camouflaged Aston was in 2002? Agree to disagree here, but if that makes my opinion controversial then I'm in the right thread!

    They are equally absurd concepts. I think people get older and become more cynical. What seemed creative and exciting in 1977 was stupid by 2002. It has nothing to do with feasibility.

    Absolutely. There are equally absurd concepts, but for me they are both the right kind of absurd for James Bond. The world of Bond is always one step into the future. We may not exactly have the submersible Lotus yet—certainly not as it's represented in the film—and will likely not have the invisible Aston for some time—though reflective camouflaging technology comes close today—but they are both a step into the future and that's the kind of absurd I can handle within the more outlandish Bond films.

    Absolutely. I think the real problem is the quality of the films they are found in. People like the Lotus because it is part of a much better film.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    And the submarine Lotus is already a classic most cinema going audiences would recognise and place in the wrong series. Whereas if you ask them about the invisible car they could probably not tie that to the 007 franchise.

    That said all the Bond movies have their impossibilities that can be used as argument why that movie does not work for somebody. In DAD I do not mind the invisible car as much as that poor man's CGI bit that took me completely out of the movie. A huge missed chance from DAD is that they did not use the patricide by the baddie for a better script. Instead of the big noise and OTT action in the finale.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    The Vanish is easier to swallow than Moon's magic plastic surgery.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The Vanish is easier to swallow than Moon's magic plastic surgery.


    The surgery doesn't bother. It's just another farfetched concept.

    Too far fetched for me.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,843
    Not sure how controversial it is but I consider the title of the Craig movies, minus the QOS one, to be the best of the series.

    Oh and not directly about the Bond movies but I never understood the appeal of Clive Owen as Bond.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,843
    Sorry I meant the opening credit. QOS is a great title.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,990
    I love the SF titles but Kleinman is falling into the trap of revealing too much.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited November 2016 Posts: 10,588
    All of Kleinman's work is nothing but sheer perfection. That said, he needs to focus on the overall themes of the film instead of literal representations of what's to come.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Maybe that's something Mendes wanted.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    It's very possible.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    People forget that Binder's work on GF is just as literal as Kleinman's work now. As in, they actually play footage from the movie during the title sequence.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    People forget that Binder's work on GF is just as literal as Kleinman's work now. As in, they actually play footage from the movie during the title sequence.

    That was Robert Brownjohn not Maurice Binder.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    To me the Vanish was just: Seen stuff like that too often. Many things were just done already in other Bond films and I got tired of that. But I loved DAD's beginning - the whole first half to be correct.

    Putting the character of James Bond himself into focus was a wise choice and welcome break after DAD.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    People forget that Binder's work on GF is just as literal as Kleinman's work now. As in, they actually play footage from the movie during the title sequence.

    That was Robert Brownjohn not Maurice Binder.

    You are absolutely correct - how did I not know this?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I think Kleinman has definitely contributed the best titles but I wouldn't say it's limited to the Craig era. The ones that stick out to me as the best are CR, GE and DAD (probably in that order).

    I really like SP's too. The SF ones are very well done but feel a bit all over the place, a bit disjointed (the others worked because he stuck to one theme). I can't remember anything about TND's. TWINE was quite good with the oil theme, that worked well and had a cool trippy aesthetic to it.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,791
    GE, TWINE and CR are my favourites of Kleinman.
    DN, TB and AVTAK for Binder.
    FRWL for Brownjohn.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    edited November 2016 Posts: 732
    Since it's the controversial thread: The worst, worst, worst title sequence is the one from SPECTRE. To me it does not "flow" at all, the strange Octopus distracts me and the awful, awful, awful title track suits this strange attempt. Shiver me timbers -unbelieveable it was the same talent that did the titles for SF (here the great Adele tune makes it even better). I dunno if the titles were done in a rush or what ...

    The best titles imho are DN, GF, TB, SF, LALD and I also like YOLT. Most others I at least like - where I think the Binder ones in general aged better that, for example, the one from GE or TND.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited November 2016 Posts: 2,721
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    People forget that Binder's work on GF is just as literal as Kleinman's work now. As in, they actually play footage from the movie during the title sequence.

    That was Robert Brownjohn not Maurice Binder.

    You are absolutely correct - how did I not know this?

    I think because it feels like it SHOULD be Maurice binder. GF has so many iconic moments and has pretty much the full classic staff on board - Barry, Bassey, Hunt, Adam, even Lamont! So it feels only natural that Binder should be doing the titles. But I actually like Brownjohn's work in this and FRWL - he's often a forgotten influence on the Bond look. Considering Binder's work isn't that different in some respects - I can see why Brownjohn blends in with the more famous title man's work - in some ways Binder picks up in TB where Brownjohn left off.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited November 2016 Posts: 2,721
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think a lot of it comes down to what vehicle looks like it is actually functioning in the film. There is no point in TSWLM where I don't buy the Lotus functioning as it is supposed to. It's tactile, I see it. The invisible car is and looks like a CGI gimmick.

    I agree with this. I think the other issue with the invisibility is that it is not utilised within the plot anywhere near as well as it could be. Imagine if we as an audience didn't know that the vanquish could vanish? We didn't know that the lotus could submerge and it is revealed in the most spectacular way. Or even used it in a tense scene where you're anticipating its use like GF's ejector seat. If they'd done that within the story of DAD rather than just showing off the gimmick it would have been better received.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    IncompetentHenchman wrote: »
    People forget that Binder's work on GF is just as literal as Kleinman's work now. As in, they actually play footage from the movie during the title sequence.

    That was Robert Brownjohn not Maurice Binder.

    You are absolutely correct - how did I not know this?

    I think because it feels like it SHOULD be Maurice binder. GF has so many iconic moments and has pretty much the full classic staff on board - Barry, Bassey, Hunt, Adam, even Lamont! So it feels only natural that Binder should be doing the titles. But I actually like Brownjohn's work in this and FRWL - he's often a forgotten influence on the Bond look. Considering Binder's work isn't that different in some respects - I can see why Brownjohn blends in with the more famous title man's work - in some ways Binder picks up in TB where Brownjohn left off.

    Yes.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think a lot of it comes down to what vehicle looks like it is actually functioning in the film. There is no point in TSWLM where I don't buy the Lotus functioning as it is supposed to. It's tactile, I see it. The invisible car is and looks like a CGI gimmick.

    I agree with this. I think the other issue with the invisibility is that it is not utilised within the plot anywhere near as well as it could be. Imagine if we as an audience didn't know that the vanquish could vanish? We didn't know that the lotus could submerge and it is revealed in the most spectacular way. Or even used it in a tense scene where you're anticipating its use like GF's ejector seat. If they'd done that within the story of DAD rather than just showing off the gimmick it would have been better received.

    I see your point but people will then complain that the invisible car came from nowhere, like the saw in the watch in LALD.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Kleinman's titles are wonderful. I blame his last two effects on Mendes (but it's not like DK did a bad job on the animation)
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    All in all, I guess that Binder's last are the worst and least ambitious ones. They also have hardly anything to do with the films. On average, I like Kleinman's much more. Here is my ranking of the title sequneces. It should probably belong somewhere else, but...

    01. Golden Eye
    02. Thunderball
    03. The World is not enough
    04. Casino Royal
    05. Skyfall
    06. You only live twice
    07. A view to a kill
    08. Tomorrow never dies
    09. The Spy who loved me
    10. Live and Let die
    11. The man with the golden gun
    12. Moonraker
    13. Die another day
    14. Diamonds are forever
    15. From Russia with love
    16. Goldfinger
    17. Dr. No
    18. Quantum of Solace
    19. For your eyes only
    20. On her majesty's secret service
    21. Spectre
    22. License to Kill
    23. The Living Daylights
    24. Octopussy
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    DN better than QOS or SP ? ...interesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.