Controversial opinions about Bond films

1508509511513514705

Comments

  • Posts: 15,785
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I find my appreciation for OP and NSNA to always be about equal, even in ‘83. Entirely different sets of strengths and weaknesses, but it seems to balance out. High teens in my rankings; great moments and some excellent performances, also a good chunk of regrettable choices.

    I tend to nearly always place them side by side in my rankings, usually in the top 10. As a kid i thought it was extremely interesting there could be two different Bond films out in the same year. I love watching them both back to back.
  • Posts: 1,879
    One of the things about NSNA is that a lot of its goodwill, especially among the critics back in the day such as Ebert, is that a lot of people couldn't let go of having Connery back for one more and that automatically elevated it into a better movie than what it was.

    Put it this way: If you put about any other actor in what was NSNA without Connery and what would the reaction have been? That's not a dig whatsoever at anyone commenting about seeing it first on video or whatever. I'm just thinking of the legacy more than anything else.

    Both NSNA and OP were originally scheduled to both be out in the summer of '83. But another interesting what-if is what if NSNA would have debuted before OP or if OP came out in the fall of the year after NSNA in the summer.
  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    If NSNA was an "official" Bond if would be bottom of my list....even below DAD! Risible.
  • Posts: 14,800
    BT3366 wrote: »
    In reading over this thread about the old style of Bond and the modern continuing stories with personal angles and such it got me thinking. It's not just films, but extends to television as well. It's all about the personal and continuing stories and ongoing.

    Back in the day most television series told stand-alone stories with some callbacks to earlier episodes with recurring characters or popular villains. The phenomenon of television cliffhangers only goes back to the early '80s or so. These days it's all about the continuity as even sitcoms these days have ongoing storylines, so there's an audience that has never known anything else. It won't change.

    For those of us who have been through both types, it's especially polarizing. It's interesting I can enjoy what's gone before still with the standalones, but with the modern looking forward to the next chapter being teased.

    Very good point @BT3366. Only children programs nowadays have standalone episodes.
  • Posts: 385
    “Everyone else does it, so Bond must follow suit” rings hollow.
  • Posts: 2,887
    It would certainly be nice to see a Bond film that set trends instead of following them.
  • Posts: 250
    MooreFun wrote: »
    “Everyone else does it, so Bond must follow suit” rings hollow.

    It's what keeps him alive.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Then give me a children’s episode with my vodka martini. I’ll be content.

    I agree. We really need a return to the more classic formula for Bond once a new actor takes over. I find it concerning that after SP Purvis and Wade apparently said something to the effect of “it felt like the end of making that kind of Bond movie.” While I certainly don’t want another anticlimactic mishmash like SP, if by “that kind of Bond movie,” they meant a film that tries to use any of the classic elements, then I wholly disagree with them.
  • Posts: 14,800
    Revelator wrote: »
    It would certainly be nice to see a Bond film that set trends instead of following them.

    My controversial opinion: Bond has always followed trends as much as setting them. And this has been the case since Fleming. And there’s nothing shameful about it. Raymond Chandler, Conan Doyle, they were all following something already established before them.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Then give me a children’s episode with my vodka martini. I’ll be content.

    I agree. We really need a return to the more classic formula for Bond once a new actor takes over. I find it concerning that after SP Purvis and Wade apparently said something to the effect of “it felt like the end of making that kind of Bond movie.” While I certainly don’t want another anticlimactic mishmash like SP, if by “that kind of Bond movie,” they meant a film that tries to use any of the classic elements, then I wholly disagree with them.
    Those two have absolutely no clue how to do formula. It's taxing for them. They seem to be better gently poking fun at the famous recurring elements, which, imho, is a terrible mistake in the long run. Once you debase your own famed legacy, there's possibly no coming back.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited February 2019 Posts: 8,255
    Uh...
    W.
    T.
    F.
    ?
    I’m at a hockey tournament in Montreal. It’s been am-a-za-zing.

    I come back to this site about one of my favourite characters of all time and I get a guy acting tough but coming off as a sexist pig on one thread, and he also knows nothing about screenwriting and how a franchise script is built on this thread.

    Anyways... back to my son who delivers purity on ice (with training and experience rather than bluffing and bullshit. Far more satisfying ).
  • Posts: 2,887
    Ludovico wrote: »
    My controversial opinion: Bond has always followed trends as much as setting them. And this has been the case since Fleming. And there’s nothing shameful about it. Raymond Chandler, Conan Doyle, they were all following something already established before them.

    Maybe, but Chandler and Doyle were still trend-setters, along with Fleming. They engendered lots of imitators. They were deeply influenced by other writers within their genres, but they weren't imitators themselves. This also applies to the 60s Bond films, which were endlessly copied, parodied, and pastiched by other films during that decade. Of course the Bond films were influenced by earlier films, from North By Northwest all the way back to Fritz Lang's Spione, but they still felt remarkably fresh and unique to audiences back then. Modern Bond films don't wear their influences as lightly.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    One last note before signing off:

    About 10,000 scripts are submitted to the WGA/year... that’s just in the US.

    About 800 films are produced WW/year.

    Do the math.

    Being a part of a franchise, no matter what the armchair-coach says, these writers are in a 1%, and for a reason (most likely their films have accumulated hundreds of millions and into the billions. They have talent. And they execute what is asked of them (trust me, as hard as it seems, SPectre would have been far worse as it was before P&W stepped on board. They could only salvage what was there; please remember they also wrote a more sincere ending of CR before Haggis came on board; they made sure that Vesper didn’t have a child that Bond was searching for in QOS; they massaged SF; they worked with scraps oN SP)....
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited February 2019 Posts: 4,053
    peter wrote: »
    One last note before signing off:

    About 10,000 scripts are submitted to the WGA/year... that’s just in the US.

    About 800 films are produced WW/year.

    Do the math.

    Being a part of a franchise, no matter what the armchair-coach says, these writers are in a 1%, and for a reason (most likely their films have accumulated hundreds of millions and into the billions. They have talent. And they execute what is asked of them (trust me, as hard as it seems, SPectre would have been far worse as it was before P&W stepped on board. They could only salvage what was there; please remember they also wrote a more sincere ending of CR before Haggis came on board; they made sure that Vesper didn’t have a child that Bond was searching for in QOS; they massaged SF; they worked with scraps oN SP)....

    True but I would like EON to take a break from them at least at first for Bond 7. Even Richard Maibaum took LALD off.
  • Posts: 250
    I don't know what's so hard to grasp about the idea that the market has changed. Of course the 60s films could be the trend setters: Broccoli and Saltzman had established their own market for a certain kind of blockbuster that wasn't just a star vehicle.

    In the late 70s that changed and ever since Bond has been trying to compete. If you want it to go back to the way it was thats nice: it'll be a niche product and it won't continue much longer as a franchise.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    I got a few emails and PMs to explain my posts: lemme just say this:

    For anyone saying that Barbara Broccoli doesn’t get that some of her fans want something more light hearted, and that she should leave and someone else should take over??

    That is nauseating Hubris at its worse. The person who puffs his chest like this usually is a yellow belly. Usually has had no success. And certainly doesn’t understand what it takes to run a franchise like Bond.

    P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    I can only assume that this poster was referring to my earlier reference to @Birdleson's post.

    So perhaps I should clarify, as that was the last comment I made after a lengthy post on what I find interesting about those Bond films l like - which is where they get the mix right in a manner that works for me. I hope my perspective in that post was clear enough to other posters. If not I can explain further.

    My last point was in relation to my view that her interest doesn't appear to be in making these kinds of films. The tone of the recent entries has been darker and more angsty in my opinion, in addition to being personal. That's not to say I've not liked some of them (CR & SF remain firmly entrenched in my top 10). There's really nothing wrong with that, as she is entitled to do whatever she wants as producer. If she chooses not to make those lighter films without a layer of emotional disquiet, then we're likely going to have to wait for a new generation of producers, whether it be Gregg or whoever, to take over an put their own stamp on things. That was my point.

    With regard to my view on P&W and formula, I see no evidence that they know how to do it well. I don't believe they have an interest in it, and when they touch it, it appears like a tack on. They seem better when they poke fun at things (the martini comment in CR, the ejector comment in SF, the exploding pen comment in SF). Once you go there, then it's difficult for me to buy it when you drop an exploding watch and ejector seat in the next film in the series. You need a reboot to re-establish that sort of concept credibly.

    Hopefully that clears things up.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,914
    Purvis and Wade are subject to the producers and what other writers started and the realities of the market as much as Tom Mankiewicz and Christopher Wood. It's not so easy to divine what content they're responsible for or would do on their own.

    I'll stop there.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    There's hubris about alright
    As James Bond says to Silva-- I hope that wasn't meant for me?

    Coz I will just say:

    When you almost lose a loved one to cancer, your wife, and mother to your kids (and taking care of these kids at the same time, who think their mother is a goner), and you have to submit to what others (doctors ad specialists) are saying, one realizes very quickly that there are people, whether we understand or not, that "know" more than you do.

    When that happens, humility is quickly earned.

    Hubris goes out your window.

    And, like Gladwell says, you may recognize something in a blink (hubris) in others, because of education and experience.

    So I had to do that when my wife was diagnosed, and survived a second bout of cancer.

    I've been pretty open with who I am. Don't hide behind a fake name. Check out my IMDbPro page. LinkedIn. Email me.

    If anyone thinks I am making a story up about humility via cancer, feel free to contact my wife and myself. Email me and I will give you her email/number.

    She would like to speak to you too.

    Through life I realized that no matter what, people knew more than me and were better than me.

    And, yes, I detect a whiff of Hubris on this site when a few-- not all-- think they know better than those "running the show"; they think the bosses should depart something that they have literally been brought up to do...

    Whether you think the "tone of the recent entries have been darker and more angsty", one can also say-- sign of the times, mate; deal with it.

    Coz this same producing team made very 90s films during the 90s... This wan't my cup of tea, but I didn't think this trend would continue, and never did I think the producing team should step aside. Ever. --- that would be ignorant and arrogant Hubris.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Purvis and Wade are subject to the producers and what other writers started and the realities of the market as much as Tom Mankiewicz and Christopher Wood. It's not so easy to divine what content they're responsible for or would do on their own.

    I'll stop there.

    Absolutely correct. One poster thinks he knows that a writer, or writers, were responsible for the martini joke in CR, the ejector seat, and exploding pen comment in SF....-- that's impossible to tell without being privy to all of the outlines and drafts of each writing team...

    P&W-- and I have my own issues with their scripts as a writer-- do their best according to what their bosses asked of them.

    And we know specifically, that Sony and EoN were grateful to this team for saving Sp from being the crap-the-bed-mess it was before they arrived.

    (I am on record saying that they (EoN and Sony) should have hit pause and gone back to the drawing board.

    P&W made shit plus 2...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    To other posters on this site, I hope I've explained my thinking in my earlier posts. There was no hubris intended whatsoever and I wouldn't want my perspective to be framed by others. I try to explain my personal opinion as best I can, but it remains just my view.

    I take issue with this recent characterization of my posts and views and find them inappropriate.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    bondjames wrote: »
    To other posters on this site, I hope I've explained my thinking in my earlier posts. There was no hubris intended whatsoever and I wouldn't want my perspective to be framed by others. I try to explain my personal opinion as best I can, but it remains just my view.

    I take issue with this recent characterization of my posts and views and find them inappropriate.

    Then you can PM me, mate. Your words are clear, and as several who reached out to me, find your comments, past and present, sexist and arrogant.

    I myself personally feel you are a very eloquent writer-- as I have told you in the past. But, as I also said to you privately, when one takes one so seriously, one seems to eat oneself.

    I can see why some thought your comments earlier today of telling Babs to move on, sounded like a little bully.

    You're more intelligent than that. Sure you weren't trying to present yourself as a tough customer-type.

    I get what you were saying.

    Present it as you know how.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Again, to other posters, it was not my intention to present myself as a tough customer type at all. I'm nobody in relation to Barbara B. Nobody. What impact can I have on anything pertaining to Bond films in general? Nothing.

    I'm just a poster on a fan site expressing my opinions as I see it. I don't expect anyone to think anything of my posts or read too much into them. I certainly don't. Comment on them if you wish. Question if you wish. I'll clarify and explain. I don't take things too seriously and my posts shouldn't be taken as such either. They are my thoughts at a point in time as I follow a conversation. My opinions can differ next week, depending on how a position or conversation is articulated and explained. I apologize to anyone else who may see my posts as sexist or arrogant. It is not my intention because that's not who I am. That is part of my humour and shouldn't be misconstrued.

    I hope I've explained to others who may have questioned any intentions in my post. Again, I find the comments leveled against me inappropriate and unacceptable.
  • Posts: 385
    Painting any criticism of a film or producer as sexism is a recent and sadly popular trait out of Hollywood; I would hope (perhaps foolishly) that Bond would stay out of that arena.

    Brosnan era fans would never use such tactics when the films are (nearly endlessly) criticized. We'd just say you don't like to have fun.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    bj, these are your words and some were turned off by them (myself included coz you're better than this):

    "If Broccoli has a problem with this, then maybe it's time to move on and let someone else get it done."

    It sounds silly and arrogant. BB and MGW have been brought up to make these films by Albert himself. To tell them to move on and let someone else get done what you want to see?...

    It speaks for itself.

    Bj-- you're better than this.

    That's all I have to say. Obviously your remark(s) is apropos to the threads title-- and I will leave it be.
  • Posts: 385
    I guess I'll throw down one to get the thread back on track:

    The DB5's last appearance should have been GoldenEye, as a way of showing "Yes, the Cold War is over and it has been six years since the last film, but this is still the same James Bond." Beyond that, its inclusion has only felt like a cheap throwback to the past, including the TND appearance and TWINE near-appearance. I'm hoping Spectre marks the final time we see it on screen.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    I agree wholeheartedly.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,969
    SPECTRE would have been more suitable for Pierce Brosnan.

    Possibly would have made it a better film.

    Agreed, and I will add that Craig has kinda outlived his purpose as Bond. He doesn't fit the mould of what they were going for with SP.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2019 Posts: 5,131
    Benny wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    2x controversial points......NSNA is much better than OP (better cast, settings, Fleming style script). The tone of QoS is much better than Skyfall (more serious, better score, more suited to Craig).

    NSNA is a cheap remake of TB, granted which a very good cast, but just as good as OP. Louis Jourdan, Kabir Bedi, Steven Berkoff, Maud Adams. I'd say there's more Fleming in OP than NSNA, which bizarrely seems to follow the Roger Moore style quips and gags, even though it stars Sean Connery.
    Of course our opinions as fans will always differ. Just adding my take on it. ;)

    My problem with OP is some of the overt humour which ruins an otherwise tense scene. E.g. Tarzan yell or checking a wrist watch while dressed as a gorilla.....even when trying to hide and save your life and half of Germany!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.