Controversial opinions about Bond films

1417418420422423705

Comments

  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    I'm not saying the QOS plot is unimportant. It's one of my favorite films for the same reasons as @JamesBondKenya posted. I just hope you weren't implying that I don't care about Bolivians.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Remington wrote: »
    I'm not saying the QOS plot is unimportant. It's one of my favorite films for the same reasons as @JamesBondKenya posted. I just hope you weren't implying that I don't care about Bolivians.

    No. I just find it funny that so many of the people that ridicule QoS for it's 'non engaging' plot are the same that idolize Goldfinger as the pinnacle of human perfection.

    And, at the end of the day, is it a coincidence that the first Bond smash hit in the US was the first that was set in America with a plot concerning americans? Would so many consider political coups and the monopoly on a nations water supply to be 'low scale' if the scenario was set in the US or Brittain?
  • Posts: 14,831
    Both GF and QOS plots are large scale. QOS is in fact a very topical plot: access to drinkable water supplies is a concern for environmental, economic and geopolitical reasons.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited December 2017 Posts: 1,984
    The only thing that's worth idolising about GF's plot was the ingenuity of the villain's actual scheme, which for its time would've been amazing. And even that in terms of scale it's nothing compared to any one of the ones that come after up until TMWTGG, nor TSWLM or MR. I find the overall GF plot not so stellar since the vast majority of it is just luck, and bits of it don't even make sense. Bond is all about suspension of disbelief, but GF stretches it pretty far.

    QoS's plot is fine, but it's just not a standout.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Whenever people list the 'scale' of the plot as a defining factor for a good Bond film, it always surprises me. When was ever that synonymous with a great Bond film? Some of the most celebrated films in the series have fairly easy, espionage plots. Nuclear weapons or the risk of human extinction was never what made Bond special to me...
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Scale is still kind of important in a Bond film - eventhough it may be superficial.

    Ken Adam's work for example was groundbreaking and was something we hadn't really seen before. You can't deny scale was often an important factor of his sets (eventhough he could make a small room atmospheric too).
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,788
    I think QOS has an excellent premise. The problem is the rushed pace, it’s so hyprractive at times that it’s hard to enjoy the beauty of some of its better moments.

    For instance the scenes with Mathis and the ones with Leiter and Beame are brilliant, but I feel they could have provided more scenes like that.

    Also, I cannot defend the action editing in this film. It really makes my head explode.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    The biggest problem of QoS are the villains... they are boring and not really a threat. Bond knocks them out so very easily without any help. That is just too simple. I just find it hard to enjoy a film where Bond locks the two main villains in the boot oh his cars...

    Greene is not a match for Bond and if so they should not have made a fight sequence between the two because that becomes very unexciting. We also don't really see anything of their great villain scheme. This film is about water supply? It could be about oil, gold or gas... since we see absolutely nothing of it. No set piece indicates that this film is about water. Just a short and cliche scene of poor Bolivans starving from a lack of water...

    I also find Craig very uncharismatic in this film. He mostly only shows one emotion. This could easily be a Bourne film and misses all typical Bondian element.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    GBF wrote: »
    The biggest problem of QoS are the villains... they are boring and not really a threat. Bond knocks them out so very easily without any help. That is just too simple. I just find it hard to enjoy a film where Bond locks the two main villains in the boot oh his cars...

    Greene is not a match for Bond and if so they should not have made a fight sequence between the two because that becomes very unexciting. We also don't really see anything of their great villain scheme. This film is about water supply? It could be about oil, gold or gas... since we see absolutely nothing of it. No set piece indicates that this film is about water. Just a short and cliche scene of poor Bolivans starving from a lack of water...

    I also find Craig very uncharismatic in this film. He mostly only shows one emotion. This could easily be a Bourne film and misses all typical Bondian element.

    Exactly. There is literally nothing about the film that is engaging in any way.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I wonder, was QOS a hit in Oblivia?
  • Posts: 14,831
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Scale is still kind of important in a Bond film - eventhough it may be superficial.

    Ken Adam's work for example was groundbreaking and was something we hadn't really seen before. You can't deny scale was often an important factor of his sets (eventhough he could make a small room atmospheric too).

    Scale is important to a degree but it's not obligatory. As @jobo said many Bond stories are simple spy thrillers.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited December 2017 Posts: 6,788
    I think none of my absolute favourites have Ken Adam sets. Not because I don’t like them, on the contrary I absolutely love them.

    However, with the exception of DN, Bond’s quest always seems to get a bit lost in those giant sets. I take stories like FRWL, OHMSS and TLD over giant sets any day.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I think non of my absolute favourites have Ken Adam sets. Not because I don’t like them, on the contrary I absolutely love them.

    However, with the exception of DN, Bond’s quest always seems to get a bit lost in those giant sets. I take stories like FRWL, OHMSS and TLD over giant sets any day.

    Same here actually.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Scale is still kind of important in a Bond film - eventhough it may be superficial.
    Scale is definitely associated with the film version of James Bond. No doubt about that. Not just in the sets, but in everything. Nothing but the biggest and the best is expected from this franchise. They may deviate from that from time to time, but they are inevitably forced to go back to it because it's what the majority of the audience expects, and rightly so imho.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    I agree but usually you get an impression that there is some kind of real danger. It may be about nukes or poison or a specific device that should not fall into the wrong hands.

    In QoS it is unclear whether anything about Bolivia's water supply has really changed due to Bond's action... And we still don't know anything about Quantum...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Oh, I agree that QoS fumbles it in a few ways. The water thing is all fine and dandy (and is indeed geopolitically important - certain countries in the Middle East are fighting for control over it although they'll never publicly admit it), but it is indeed unresolved at the end of the film, as you note.

    There is also a degree of opaqueness to the plot which is unusual for a Bond film (good and bad are not so clearly defined). To my eyes at least it has an almost 70's style murky/shadowy flavour. I like that about the film, but I can see why it would be a hard sell.

    Ultimately QoS birthed SP, because they had to come back and clean it up for Craig to exit gracefully. Sadly, they failed (at least imho) and now they will attempt a clean up once more. Hope they get it right this time so we can finally move on.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    GBF wrote: »
    The biggest problem of QoS are the villains... they are boring and not really a threat. Bond knocks them out so very easily without any help. That is just too simple. I just find it hard to enjoy a film where Bond locks the two main villains in the boot oh his cars...

    Greene is not a match for Bond and if so they should not have made a fight sequence between the two because that becomes very unexciting. We also don't really see anything of their great villain scheme. This film is about water supply? It could be about oil, gold or gas... since we see absolutely nothing of it. No set piece indicates that this film is about water. Just a short and cliche scene of poor Bolivans starving from a lack of water...

    I also find Craig very uncharismatic in this film. He mostly only shows one emotion. This could easily be a Bourne film and misses all typical Bondian element.

    Exactly. There is literally nothing about the film that is engaging in any way.

    Well that's because, perhaps, you seem to miss the real threat: an organisation toppling weak governments and influencing powerful ones for their own gain.

    The water is only the project Greene is working on at that moment. The threat starts in the PTS when Quantum turns out to have an informant within MI6 (I don't think he smoked). Then it's the envoy to the prime minister, then Beame (CIA) turns out working for them. Then the Minister of defence(?) pushes M back because of Quantum's influence. They already took Haiti. They're working on other projects too (Canada) but Greene is asking for priority for his 'tiara' project, the toppling of the Bolivian government by holding it randsom.


    How could a force like that not be a threat. I think it's a far better 21st century threat then, say, a media tycoon trying to start a war between the UK and China because of a grudge, or a banker to the world's terrorists (good thing he's working for the same organisation).
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    GBF wrote: »
    The biggest problem of QoS are the villains... they are boring and not really a threat. Bond knocks them out so very easily without any help. That is just too simple. I just find it hard to enjoy a film where Bond locks the two main villains in the boot oh his cars...

    Greene is not a match for Bond and if so they should not have made a fight sequence between the two because that becomes very unexciting. We also don't really see anything of their great villain scheme. This film is about water supply? It could be about oil, gold or gas... since we see absolutely nothing of it. No set piece indicates that this film is about water. Just a short and cliche scene of poor Bolivans starving from a lack of water...

    I also find Craig very uncharismatic in this film. He mostly only shows one emotion. This could easily be a Bourne film and misses all typical Bondian element.

    Exactly. There is literally nothing about the film that is engaging in any way.

    Well that's because, perhaps, you seem to miss the real threat: an organisation toppling weak governments and influencing powerful ones for their own gain.

    The water is only the project Greene is working on at that moment. The threat starts in the PTS when Quantum turns out to have an informant within MI6 (I don't think he smoked). Then it's the envoy to the prime minister, then Beame (CIA) turns out working for them. Then the Minister of defence(?) pushes M back because of Quantum's influence. They already took Haiti. They're working on other projects too (Canada) but Greene is asking for priority for his 'tiara' project, the toppling of the Bolivian government by holding it randsom.


    How could a force like that not be a threat. I think it's a far better 21st century threat then, say, a media tycoon trying to start a war between the UK and China because of a grudge, or a banker to the world's terrorists (good thing he's working for the same organisation).

    That does sound like quite an interesting plot on paper. The problem is that the film doesn't expound on that in any way, and it's not built upon in any other films. If there was any point at which we saw Quantum (or Spectre) wielding any globally significant political power due to such a plot, it would be very engaging. As it stands, all we had was them being a bit of a bother in a few small, low population, unimportant countries.
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 11,189
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I think none of my absolute favourites have Ken Adam sets. Not because I don’t like them, on the contrary I absolutely love them.

    However, with the exception of DN, Bond’s quest always seems to get a bit lost in those giant sets. I take stories like FRWL, OHMSS and TLD over giant sets any day.

    That's a good point and one I can agree with. However, taking Ken Adam out of the equation, I think all the films you mention have a certain "spectacle" about them in terms of their locations (certainly OHMSS).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    'Spectacle' seemed to have died during the Glen era imho. It returned with GE but then became a bit of a farce (again imho) after that.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    Harbinger to shocking revelation:

    CASINO ROYALE 67 is better than at least four EoN Bond films.
  • Posts: 15,818
    Harbinger to shocking revelation:

    CASINO ROYALE 67 is better than at least four EoN Bond films.

    That's about where I've got it right now. EON needs to seriously up their game from here on out.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm really curious to see CR67 now, after these latest comments.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Harbinger to shocking revelation:

    CASINO ROYALE 67 is better than at least four EoN Bond films.

    That's about where I've got it right now. EON needs to seriously up their game from here on out.

    I doubt we have the same four films below CR 67....but good job old boy! :D
  • edited December 2017 Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    'Spectacle' seemed to have died during the Glen era imho. It returned with GE but then became a bit of a farce (again imho) after that.

    Maybe it's the blu ray but I'm not sure GE has that much "spectacle". Yes it aims to go bigger than the 80s Bond films, but a lot of the locations seem quite bland in the film (other than Monte Carlo). Much of it also seems like it was filmed in a studio (the replica of the Puerto Rico dish as its rising out of the water is kind of obvious against the shots of the real dish). The film does have more "atmosphere" though compared to the previous films (the sterile control room, dingy cell and statue park scenes stand out well.

    Though the weaker film, TND has more use of actual locations.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    'Spectacle' seemed to have died during the Glen era imho. It returned with GE but then became a bit of a farce (again imho) after that.

    Maybe it's the blu ray but I'm not sure GE has that much "spectacle". Yes it aims to go bigger than the 80s Bond films, but a lot of the locations seem quite bland in the film (other than Monte Carlo). Much of it also seems like it was filmed in a studio (the replica of the Puerto Rico dish as its rising out of the water is kind of obvious against the shots of the real dish). The film does have "atmosphere" though (the sterile control room, dingy cell and statue park scenes stand out well.

    Though the weaker film, TND has more use of actual locations.
    I agree but I think GE more captures the spirit and slightly eccentric nature of the James Bond films. TND, while notably more expensive and lavish, lacks that quirky essence. It's all tech and flash without character, imho. Like someone trying to do Bond who doesn't quite get it.
  • Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    'Spectacle' seemed to have died during the Glen era imho. It returned with GE but then became a bit of a farce (again imho) after that.

    Maybe it's the blu ray but I'm not sure GE has that much "spectacle". Yes it aims to go bigger than the 80s Bond films, but a lot of the locations seem quite bland in the film (other than Monte Carlo). Much of it also seems like it was filmed in a studio (the replica of the Puerto Rico dish as its rising out of the water is kind of obvious against the shots of the real dish). The film does have "atmosphere" though (the sterile control room, dingy cell and statue park scenes stand out well.

    Though the weaker film, TND has more use of actual locations.
    I agree but I think GE more captures the spirit and slightly eccentric nature of the James Bond films. TND, while notably more expensive and lavish, lacks that quirky essence. It's all tech and flash without character, imho. Like someone trying to do Bond who doesn't quite get it.

    Yeah that makes sense.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,788
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Harbinger to shocking revelation:

    CASINO ROYALE 67 is better than at least four EoN Bond films.

    That's about where I've got it right now. EON needs to seriously up their game from here on out.

    I gave it the same rating as four EON films, 5/10, though I’m not sure I’d rank it above them.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Harbinger to shocking revelation:

    CASINO ROYALE 67 is better than at least four EoN Bond films.

    Have you seen never say never again yet?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really curious to see CR67 now, after these latest comments.

    If I were you, I would leave it there. Nothing about that film makes any sense, or is even the least bit funny. Frankly, I would rather sit through QOS again.
Sign In or Register to comment.