740 replies to this topic

[SecretAgentFan]

It really stays with me.  And a big part of that is, of course, that dramatic orchestra which IMO is absolutely Bondian.

[sharpshooter]

It really stays with me.  And a big part of that is, of course, that dramatic orchestra which IMO is absolutely Bondian.

The melody is good, I'll give it that. I have no problem with Newman utilising it. 

[The Dove]

I find "Nobody Does It Better" to be overrated.. It's a good theme song, but I don't regard it as highly as most Bond fans do..

[Tiin007]

I don't think a modern adaptation of Fleming's You Only Live Twice (i.e. the garden of death) would make an ideal Bond film. 

 

Nor do I think that "going back to Fleming" would necessarily make a good Bond film.

 

There. I said it. 

[Tiin007]

Among all the directors, John Glen was the most consistent when it came to producing quality Bond films.

 

Some of the others (Hamilton, Mendes, even Campbell) were a bit all over the place quality-wise. 

 

I'm almost never not in the mood to watch a Glen entry. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree - John Glen was IMO one of the best Bond directors.  He completely understood what a Bond film needs - and no wonder, he rose from the ranks within and got plenty of experience regarding Bond films.

 

I think - and this might be unorthodox right now - that getting a so-called "A-List"-director to do a Bond film is a mistake.  Those guys are basically considering themselves better than the material and only sign on because these days their personal projects just don´t get greenlit and they still want to maintain their lifestyle.

 

Promoting from within was one of Cubby´s great ideas - and the hunt for prestige in the last decade (two decades?) was a step into the wrong direction.

[DaveBond21]

I agree - John Glen was IMO one of the best Bond directors.  He completely understood what a Bond film needs - and no wonder, he rose from the ranks within and got plenty of experience regarding Bond films.

 

I think - and this might be unorthodox right now - that getting a so-called "A-List"-director to do a Bond film is a mistake.  Those guys are basically considering themselves better than the material and only sign on because these days their personal projects just don´t get greenlit and they still want to maintain their lifestyle.

 

Promoting from within was one of Cubby´s great ideas - and the hunt for prestige in the last decade (two decades?) was a step into the wrong direction.

 

True, although I find it fascinating that so many of the team have been around for 35 years - Chris Corbould has been involved in them all since AVTAK, Terry Madden (every Bond since FYEO), Tony Waye (FYEO to CR), Callum McDougall (all of them since LTK), Purvis & Wade  - wrote most of the stuff since TWINE, Terry Bamber (at least since TND), Debbie McWilliams, involved in casting since FYEO, Gary Powell involved in stunts since Goldeneye, Naomie Donne (make up since TLD) and of course Babs and Michael, and now his 2 sons are involved, Gregg and David Wilson.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, it´s still a family business, and that´s obviously important and still considered essential by EON to run a smooth ship.

 

I just wish they would give up trying so desperately to earn critical acclaim by chasing the big name directors and put talented people from in-house on the driving seat.

[DavidJones]

My unorthodox opinion is that Octopussy is the best film.

[Tiin007]

My unorthodox opinion is that Octopussy is the best film.

 

It's certainly up there (I always rank it within my top four). Far and away the most underappreciated Bond movie. Action is exhilarating, plot and characters are incredibly engaging, and has some nice serious moments to balance out the camp. Also a real Cold War plot. I can't remember the last time I was not in the mood for Octopussy.

 

And Kamal Khan is a phenomenal villain. 

[Mendalla007]

Yes, it´s still a family business, and that´s obviously important and still considered essential by EON to run a smooth ship.

 

I just wish they would give up trying so desperately to earn critical acclaim by chasing the big name directors and put talented people from in-house on the driving seat.

 

Agreed. Bond movies need someone who can, first and foremost, keep both plot and action moving at a brisk pace, not draw out deep, introspective performances from the leads or build elaborate melodramas. These are thrillers made to entertain, not Oscar-bait.

 

 

My unorthodox opinion is that Octopussy is the best film.

 

It's certainly up there (I always rank it within my top four). Far and away the most underappreciated Bond movie. Action is exhilarating, plot and characters are incredibly engaging, and has some nice serious moments to balance out the camp. Also a real Cold War plot. I can't remember the last time I was not in the mood for Octopussy.

 

And Kamal Khan is a phenomenal villain. 

 

 

Hmm. Have to give it another whirl. I haven't seen it since it came out and I was in the habit of seeing every Bond movie in the cinemas on opening night. Didn't impress me much at the time other than the performances of Jourdan and Adams.

[hilly]

I'm bored of the whole story arc thing.

Spectre tried to string together all the Craig films. It was clumsy and unconvincing.

I wish they'd just have stand alone films again. I don't need each film to contain reminders of previous ones.

[Tiin007]

 

 

 

My unorthodox opinion is that Octopussy is the best film.

 

It's certainly up there (I always rank it within my top four). Far and away the most underappreciated Bond movie. Action is exhilarating, plot and characters are incredibly engaging, and has some nice serious moments to balance out the camp. Also a real Cold War plot. I can't remember the last time I was not in the mood for Octopussy.

 

And Kamal Khan is a phenomenal villain. 

 

 

Hmm. Have to give it another whirl. I haven't seen it since it came out and I was in the habit of seeing every Bond movie in the cinemas on opening night. Didn't impress me much at the time other than the performances of Jourdan and Adams.

 

 

Are you saying you haven't seen Octopussy in 33 years?! 

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Thought this would be a good idea for a thread. Please share your blasphemous, rabble-rousing, and just plain subversive opinions about the James Bond movies, things you have a different opinion on from what you think the Bond public has.

 

This may not have been too unorthodox a Bond opinion historically but may seem so relative to the last few years:

I've read that many fans wish Connery had played Bond in OHMSS. I've also read many other fans say they wish Lazenby had played Bond in DAF.

These ideas have certainly resulted in some really enjoyable fan fictions, fan videos and fan art.

 

To be truthful though, I really am content with how both the 1969 and 1971 Bond films exist in reality having Lazenby in OHMSS and Connery in DAF. I can understand fans' disappointment that the events of OHMSS never really had a proper sequel(except for the PTS of FYEO) but EON just wasn't as concerned with a strict continuity between each film in those days. They tended to see each Bond adventure as a self contained story with maybe some loose connections to the others. I tend to see the Lazenby OHMSS and the Connery DAF as existing in alternate storytelling universes which helps to increase my level of viewing enjoyment for both movies.

[sharpshooter]

I'm bored of the whole story arc thing.
Spectre tried to string together all the Craig films. It was clumsy and unconvincing.
I wish they'd just have stand alone films again. I don't need each film to contain reminders of previous ones.

I think the arcs will be here to stay, at least until Craig departs. When the new actor begins his tenure, a soft reboot would likely happen. The Brosnan era handled things okay in regards to continuity. Each film was standalone, but they had two Goldeneye characters sprinkled throughout the era - Jack Wade and Valentin.

[DaveBond21]

 

I'm bored of the whole story arc thing.
Spectre tried to string together all the Craig films. It was clumsy and unconvincing.
I wish they'd just have stand alone films again. I don't need each film to contain reminders of previous ones.

I think the arcs will be here to stay, at least until Craig departs. When the new actor begins his tenure, a soft reboot would likely happen. The Brosnan era handled things okay in regards to continuity. Each film was standalone, but they had two Goldeneye characters sprinkled throughout the era - Jack Wade and Valentin.

 

 

And Tanner.

[S K Y F A L L]

 

 

I'm bored of the whole story arc thing.
Spectre tried to string together all the Craig films. It was clumsy and unconvincing.
I wish they'd just have stand alone films again. I don't need each film to contain reminders of previous ones.

I think the arcs will be here to stay, at least until Craig departs. When the new actor begins his tenure, a soft reboot would likely happen. The Brosnan era handled things okay in regards to continuity. Each film was standalone, but they had two Goldeneye characters sprinkled throughout the era - Jack Wade and Valentin.

 

 

And Tanner.

 

Also Charles Robinson.

[Daddy Bond]

Yes, I'd like to move beyond the story arcs.  It's weird, but if you think about Craig's story arc, we sort of missed his main years as Bond.  Think about it.  It went something like this....

CR - BECOMING Bond

QOS - BECOMING Bond

SF - WORN OUT ready to quit Bond  (WAIT...where are all of those adventures as full fledged Bond that WORE him out????)

Spectre - WORN OUT Bond quits (maybe)

That means we theoretically MISSED Craig's years of PRIME TIME Bond, if that makes sense.  Where's Craig's ESTABLISHED Bond who is still on the go ...not even ready to quit???  Has anyone else noticed that? 

[Tiin007]

Yes, I'd like to move beyond the story arcs.  It's weird, but if you think about Craig's story arc, we sort of missed his main years as Bond.  Think about it.  It went something like this....

CR - BECOMING Bond

QOS - BECOMING Bond

SF - WORN OUT ready to quit Bond  (WAIT...where are all of those adventures as full fledged Bond that WORE him out????)

Spectre - WORN OUT Bond quits (maybe)

That means we theoretically MISSED Craig's years of PRIME TIME Bond, if that makes sense.  Where's Craig's ESTABLISHED Bond who is still on the go ...not even ready to quit???  Has anyone else noticed that? 

 

I've noticed it, and it's a big problem.

 

Just emblematic of the fact that over the past few years EON has only been thinking in the moment, rather than analyzing "the big picture." Instead of planning things out strategically, or at least seeing where we've been the past few years so as to maintain some semblance of consistency, EON just makes things up as they go with no sense of direction. 

[Daddy Bond]

How about a throwback Daniel Craig Bond, to have taken place some time between QOS and SF?  Yeah, I know that won't work, I would just like ONE fun Bond out of Craig.  Don't get me wrong, Craig is at the top of my list of favorite Bonds.  I have enjoyed all his Bond movies.  I just miss having that ONE fun, Bond AS Bond movie.  No "getting established" as Bond and no "ready to quit" Bond.

[Tiin007]

Mendes tries too hard to create epic villain introductions, both of which I find to be pompous and illogical.

 

Much ink has been spilled regarding the "brilliant" introduction of Silva. Honestly, it feels like style over substance. Why would Silva even deliver the rat monologue to Bond? Because the "last rats standing" symbolize Bond and Silva? Well, they are NOT the last rats standing (only a few agents died, per the coffin scene), nor would Silva even qualify as he has been MIA for so long. And what is the point of "now they only eat rat"? How does that even relate to Bond / Silva? (This whole monologue reminds me of the Joker from The Dark Knight-- says a lot of weird things, but isn't really saying anything.) 

 

It seems as if Mendes was trying to go "meta" with Silva's introduction, yet nothing Silva says makes any logical sense. There is no in-universe reason why Silva would deliver that monologue to Bond. 

 

Also, if one pays careful attention to Blofeld's introduction in the crater base in SP, it comes across as nothing more than a repeat of Silva's introduction. Voice before body, going on a "meta" monologue. The "rats" representing Bond and Silva (I think), and the meteor representing spectre. 

 

I think we need to avoid these attention-seeking "meta" introductions-- this is a Bond film, not some pretentious Christopher Nolan film. 

 

I miss the good old days when Bond villains had epic introduction without trying to be epic-- Goldfinger coming down the steps, Largo parking his car, Scaramanga on his island, Sanchez going to get Lupe back. Heck, even Greene's introduction when Camille stormed in on him spoke volumes about his character, rather than attempting to create deep subtext.