Bond arguments, you are sick to death of ?

Thunderpussy · November 2014

Thought I'd open a thread to let people vent some anger, frustration etc
Over some arguments or discussions about the Bond films or books that
Keep getting dragged up.
Not for discussions, leading to arguments ( friendly or otherwise) but just to
Get it off your chest.

)

One thing I find frustrating is when older Bonds are compared to the new Films. As
They were made for a 60s audience not the modern one. So poor old YOLT and MR
Keep taking a beating.
I know the discussions will continue I'm only " venting"

)
Same goes for the sheer hatred directed at Pierce Brosnan by some, with some posts
There is really no affection there. I'm no saint,( did a bit of DC bashing) ;% but I'm
All better now, and have come round to thinking every actor who has played Bond
Has given 100% of their talent to play him. Even going beyond the call of duty as with
DC helping with the script on QOS because of the writer's strike. Pointed out to me
By Loeffholz long ago but It took it a while to sink in.

)
So any old chestnuts to roast on Bond ?

Thunderpussy · November 2014

) have you too much to complain about ?

)

Barbel · November 2014

Complaints re the FX in the older films. They did what was possible then, and tech has moved on. I don't think anyone would want Eon to do a George Lucas and revise them...would they?

Thunderpussy · November 2014

) Good God no, constant updates adding new characters, X-( (Jar Jar Binks)
Same thing when some people criticizing the old Star Trek series for bad special effects.
When for its day, it was using the best there was, the same SiFi films were using.

AlphaOmegaSin · November 2014

People complaining about MR and AVTAK X-(

)

Higgins · November 2014

Idris Elba 8-)

AlphaOmegaSin · November 2014

Yes, that's one Argument that gets rather tiresome

Thunderpussy · November 2014

Along with the theory that M was Silva's Mum.

Jarvio · November 2014

Arguments that I'm sick of? That AVTAK is bad for whatever reason. It is seriously an entertaining film.

Thunderpussy · November 2014

) I watched it last night on itv4, and really enjoyed it. -{

Thunderpussy · November 2014

Bush?
Didn't she get blown up with an explosive pen?

)

Thunderpussy · November 2014

Also Tanya Roberts was So Hot in " That 70s Show"

DevilMayCare007 · November 2014

People complain about TB being boring and fast paced. IMO TB is well paced and enjoyable, and you have a great cast to go with Connery at his best.

AdamOmega · November 2014

"Connery is the best Bond/One True Bond"

Not that I necessarily refute this argument given Connery's massive influence on the Bond film franchise (and I love his first three films)... but this is a rose-coloured argument that typically comes at the expense of other actors who took over the 007 mantle. Somehow the notion that one can't enjoy the Connery era, or a Connery-less Bond film, without resorting to bashing other interpretations is just strange to me. Also "best Bond" arguments are generally boring.

"Fleming/Flemingesque Bond movies = good Bond movies"

This might be a tad controversial of me, but I don't feel like the Bond movies owe "faithfulness" to Fleming; whatever deals were worked out with EoN productions, through thick and thin, resulted in a beloved film franchise & plenty of amazing films -- several of which have very little to do with Fleming himself. I love From Russia With Love & OHMSS, which are very faithful screen adaptations, but I'm not going to discount The Spy Who Loved Me & GoldenEye for working outside the source materials. Or Casino Royale, which tells practically the same story as the novel minus a few choice alterations. This strikes me as a popular reason why fans tend to pick apart Moonraker. Is it Fleming? Not really. But is it a spectacularly fun film with cutting edge special effects? I'd be hard pressed to say no...

Thunderbird 2 · November 2014

Heres my list.

1) Sean Connery was first, so defacto has to be the best.
2) Sir Roger was too old / too funny ha ha, / not physical enough for the role.
3) George Lazenby as Bond / OHMSS not as good as the other actors / films
4) Timothy Dalton was brilliant v Timothy Dalton was forgettable
5) Piece Brosnan films are meh
6) Daniel Craig looks funny / isn't funny / not right cause he is blond, short, etc.
7) Judi Dench's M was Bond / Silva / both's Mum, either metaphorically or literally.
8) YOLT / MRKR / DAD Are bad because they are tech overload V Gritty realism of FRWL, FYEO ir CR-06.
9) Reboot Arguments.
10) (I feel such a hypocrite on this one) - Arguments about QoS. The story is actually clever. - Bad editing ruined it for me.
11) The canon validity of CR-67 and NSNA.

Beyond the list - incessant arguments / speculation / wishful thinking / insanely bad casting
about the next actor to play Bond. - I honestly don't give a S**t!! I am enjoying that Daniel Craig IS James Bond!
- As I do Sir Sean, Sir Roger, Mr's Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan. Praise ot all of them. -{ - Except Peter Sellers.

AdamOmega · November 2014

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

8) YOLT / MRKR / DAD Are bad because they are tech overload V Gritty realism of FRWL, FYEO ir CR-06.

This.

I find You Only Live Twice and Moonraker were especially ambitious for their time, and while I have certain issues with both films (Connery under-performing in You Only Live Twice & Moonraker going overboard with camp humour), they still succeed as pure entertainment. Both films toy with elements of science fiction -- "spy-fi" if you will -- but they are credible in their own right. Even Moonraker, which is a stretch at times, has some of the best practical effects in Bond. So to some extent I actually prefer "tech overload" to some of the grittier Bond films like Quantum of Solace or Licence to Kill, which seem to have no trace of self-awareness.

I exclude Die Another Day not because "tech makes it bad" or anything redundant like that, but the overuse of CGI is certainly problematic, and in my opinion the credibility of the film begins to deteriorate somewhere around the halfway mark. But this has nothing to do with ice palaces or invisible cars, both of which -- in the right hands -- could have been spectacular in any Bond movie.

chrisisall · November 2014

The single worst repetative nonsense that irks me no end is peeps regurgitating Pierce Brosnan's comment that he disliked his performances & somehow using that as proof positive that his Bond sucked.
Catch anyone at a bad time & ask them about themselves.
Brosnan gave 100%, 100% of the time. -{

Gassy Man · November 2014

That Goldeneye was a great Bond film and that Never Say Never Again wasn't.

AlphaOmegaSin · November 2014

Arguments over which Actor is better X-(

MooseWithFleas · November 2014

Roger Moore was too silly, Lazenby was too wooden, Dalton was too bland, Brosnan was too cliche, Craig is too serious. No one did it better than Connery.

It doesn't bother me what people like or dislike, but I find it a little surprising how people are not open minded to the different styles and portrayals of Bond. We all love the concept and while we may prefer a certain style, it shouldn't mean we exclude the merits of others. If Connnery or a clone of Connery did every Bond film, the series would have died out. If any one style was the only prevailing style of Bond, the series would die out. The versatility and variety of the series is what makes it appealing to such a wide audience and keeps the series going.

In my opinion of course

Thunderpussy · November 2014

And in my opinion, You do have a point. -{

Thunderbird 2 · November 2014

AdamOmega wrote:

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

8) YOLT / MRKR / DAD Are bad because they are tech overload V Gritty realism of FRWL, FYEO ir CR-06.

This.

I find You Only Live Twice and Moonraker were especially ambitious for their time, and while I have certain issues with both films (Connery under-performing in You Only Live Twice & Moonraker going overboard with camp humour), they still succeed as pure entertainment. Both films toy with elements of science fiction -- "spy-fi" if you will -- but they are credible in their own right. Even Moonraker, which is a stretch at times, has some of the best practical effects in Bond. So to some extent I actually prefer "tech overload" to some of the grittier Bond films like Quantum of Solace or Licence to Kill, which seem to have no trace of self-awareness.

I exclude Die Another Day not because "tech makes it bad" or anything redundant like that, but the overuse of CGI is certainly problematic, and in my opinion the credibility of the film begins to deteriorate somewhere around the halfway mark. But this has nothing to do with ice palaces or invisible cars, both of which -- in the right hands -- could have been spectacular in any Bond movie.

Thunderbird Too! Nicely put.

AdamOmega · November 2014

chrisisall wrote:

The single worst repetative nonsense that irks me no end is peeps regurgitating Pierce Brosnan's comment that he disliked his performances & somehow using that as proof positive that his Bond sucked.
Catch anyone at a bad time & ask them about themselves.
Brosnan gave 100%, 100% of the time. -{

+1

Gassy Man wrote:

That Goldeneye was a great Bond film and that Never Say Never Again wasn't.

Oooh... you wouldn't like me very much, Gassy.

AdamOmega · November 2014

MooseWithFleas wrote:

Roger Moore was too silly, Lazenby was too wooden, Dalton was too bland, Brosnan was too cliche, Craig is too serious. No one did it better than Connery.

It doesn't bother me what people like or dislike, but I find it a little surprising how people are not open minded to the different styles and portrayals of Bond. We all love the concept and while we may prefer a certain style, it shouldn't mean we exclude the merits of others. If Connnery or a clone of Connery did every Bond film, the series would have died out. If any one style was the only prevailing style of Bond, the series would die out. The versatility and variety of the series is what makes it appealing to such a wide audience and keeps the series going.

In my opinion of course

This is exactly how I feel. To a tee. -{

DEFIANT 74205 · November 2014

"Dalton was terrible because his films didn't do so well at the box office" ...

Not only is that a non sequitur, box office figures have jack all to do about how well the film was made; and all about how well it was received at the time. Frankly, I couldn't care less what they are. They are completely irrelevant. What matters to me, and what defines a good Bond film for me, is its fidelity to the Fleming source material.

While I don't expect a perfect adaptation, and I acknowledge that certain stories change over time to keep the series fresh, the characters themselves should never change. The Bond in the cinemas should have a resemblance to the Bond in the novels, albeit in a different setting. Dalton's portrayal is as close to the literary character as any other actor. Both of Dalton's films were magnificent, despite what the box office says.

AlphaOmegaSin · November 2014

A Film can be brilliant and Ground breaking but have Piss poor Box Office Sales at the same Time.

chrisisall · December 2014

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

Both of Dalton's films were magnificent, despite what the box office says.

Or Higgins. -{

Absolutely_Cart · December 2014

"Connery was the only real James Bond and all the other actors don't matter".

Seriously? [insert expletive here]! All the actors had an important role in shaping the franchise and preserving it for the next generation.

superado · December 2014

I agree with most of what's been said so far, but hmmm, seems like these were missed:

(1) "Craig is the best Bond since Connery, or the best Bond, period."

(2) "Craig is the most like the Literary Bond"

(3) ...and the one that makes me wonder if there's hope for the Human Race... "Craig is the most attractive/handsome/best dressed Bond "because my wife/girlfriend/mother/brother/step-father/significant other/aunt/grandmother/parish nun/local sufferage branch president said they wouldn't mind sleeping with him."

Firemass · December 2014

Well, I'm not sick of any Bond arguments!

But this is my list of some "common truths" among Bond reviewers that keep repeating over and over and I find them to be bogus:

1. Goldeneye is BY FAR the best of the Brosnan Bonds. Infact it's the ONLY good one that he did!
2. For Your Eyes Only is the 2nd Best Roger Moore film!
3. Moonraker and AVTAK are at the bottom of the pile.
4. Lazenby's Bond was a more human, sensitive Bond with feelings.
5. Never Say Never Again is rubbish.
6. Quantum of Solace is the WORST Bond film ever.
7. Skyfall and Casino Royale are among the greatest ever.
8. Dalton is most like the literary Bond.

Firemass · December 2014

superado wrote:

(2) "Craig is the most like the Literary Bond"

He is. Specifically in Quantum of Solace. I'm not a big DC fan, but he somehow nailed it in QoS.

Bond arguments, you are sick to death of ?

Comments