Generic Films

MilleniumForce

Are there any films in the series that you feel were made just for the sake of making a Bond film? Films that had no real impact on the series, and are very generic for an action/spy film? Here are those ones IMO:

[list=*]
[*]Octopussy[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]A View to a Kill[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]Tomorrow Never Dies[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]Quantum of Solace[/*]
[/list]

HatThrowingHenchman

IMO there are NOT!
for me, the franchise is made out of each film. and every film has his own contribution to the franchise -{

besides, I would find it rather bizarre to claim I'm a Bond-fan and declare some films irrelevant at the same time

Lady Ice

I think inevitably there will be certain tropes; genre films are generally made to a formula. You can have variations on the formula but at the end of the day, there is a Bond formula.

HatThrowingHenchman

I think this topic resembles the following, which is of course more drastic :
www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/46080/are-there-any-truly-meritless-movies-in-the-series/

Agent Lee

I don't think any of the Bond films fall into the "JUST generic spy film" category (though Quantum of Solace comes pretty close). Every Bond film is a BOND film. But I agree that there are a few that rely too heavily on the Bond formula and don't contribute much to the series outside carrying it on.

chrisisall

MilleniumForce wrote:

Are there any films in the series that you feel were made just for the sake of making a Bond film? Films that had no real impact on the series, and are very generic for an action/spy film?

Never Say Never Again. :007)

Matt S

chrisisall wrote:

MilleniumForce wrote:

Are there any films in the series that you feel were made just for the sake of making a Bond film? Films that had no real impact on the series, and are very generic for an action/spy film?

Never Say Never Again. :007)

MilleniumForce said "films in the series". NSNA is not part of the series!

blame_thatcher

The Brosnan films all blur into an indistinguishable mush with none of the unique aesthetic the series is known for.

chrisisall

blame_thatcher wrote:

The Brosnan films all blur into an indistinguishable mush with none of the unique aesthetic the series is known for.

None?
Really.
Okay.

Thunderpussy

When I first saw the name of this thread I thought it said ...
... Geriatric Films, so thought of AVTAK.
( only joking, I quite enjoy AVTAK) -{

blame_thatcher

chrisisall wrote:

blame_thatcher wrote:

The Brosnan films all blur into an indistinguishable mush with none of the unique aesthetic the series is known for.

None?
Really.
Okay.

That's what I said, but it's not okay. Four bland, forgettable films in a row. Not okay at all.

Barbel

blame_thatcher wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

blame_thatcher wrote:

The Brosnan films all blur into an indistinguishable mush with none of the unique aesthetic the series is known for.

None?
Really.
Okay.

That's what I said, but it's not okay. Four bland, forgettable films in a row. Not okay at all.

I couldn't disagree with you more, though you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Many dislike the direction the films took with Dalton starring, and approve of the "soft reboot" when Brosnan took over. The introduction of Judi Dench as M was a major plus, the general public showed their approval at the box-office, and IMHO there was plenty of the "unique aesthetic" around. David Arnold taking over as composer from TND onwards was also a definite plus after Serra and Kamen.
Now, I'm not saying they were perfect- DAD for all its financial success had many flaws, and the overall lack of Fleming material was a drawback IMHO- but to call them "indistinguishable mush" is going too far.
I do not think the four Brosnan films were bland and forgettable.

chrisisall

Indeed. IMO, NO Bond movie is bland & forgettable. My least personal favourite (MR) is totally UNforgettable & not bland at all. -{

Barbel

With you there, chrisisall- in fact, I may watch that one tomorrow!

Thunderpussy

) Watched Moonraker Friday night.

The Wicker Man

I can think of many words to describe the Bond films but bland and forgettable? - No way.

chrisisall

In fact, I reject the notion that any Bond film is 'generic'. No Bond movie is devoid of its own unique character IMHO.

Thunderpussy

There might be more competition today but I remember waiting for
The next Bond to be shown on TV like I was waiting for Christmas,
So I absorbed, as much of it scene by scene as I could. ) , so they're
Not generic to me, each one is very much the individual. -{

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

each one is very much the individual. -{

Which ones have their own, MOST unique flavour then?
For ME,
DN for its crazy fifties score.
TMWTGG for its bizarre absurdity.
MR for Bond in space.
LTK for the violent Kirosawa-esque vendetta.
DAD for the cartoon-like take.
QOS for the brevity in narrative & running length.