joining a Bond forum and picking on Daniel Craig is just like joining a Pink Floyd forum and immediately starting a Gilmour vs Waters fight! easy pickings, guaranteed to generate pages of arguments, and really there's more interesting things to be talked about
I bailed on CR halfway through and never looked back, and that was what, 12 years ago?
everybody else has already called you on this so I wont pile on, but an uninformed opinion is worthless. Do your homework and watch those last four movies, then make up your own mind. and No cheating by reading spoilers, some of the above discussion is already giving away the stories.
The hilarious thing is for someone who talks about Fleming "rolling in his grave": you bailed on the movie just before the Fleming content. (sorry, that was spoilers too).
that said...
I do wonder what Fleming woulda thought ... about just about everything from Goldfinger on. He said and did some outrageous stuff, and strikes me as someone who delighted in provoking a reaction in others. I think he himself was actually much more progressive than we give him credit for, from the safe distance of 50 years later, and he claimed Bond was more leftleaning than himself.
A lot of the most objectionable content in the books is coming from M's mouth, M is an oldschool reactionary. But some right filth does often appear in Bond's own internal thoughts (e.g.: the side effects of having given women the vote). I just tell myself Bond is not intended to be a role model, he is the peculiar type of personality who would take the job of government assassin, thus probably an eensy bit warped. I don't know if we can assume Fleming himself actually shared some of the more objectionable opinions he assigned to his protagonist.
Still, Fleming was always eager to sell his character for filmrights and get rich quick. He must of known the character would evolve once in the hands of others.
The films are progressivist reboots of what was once an unrepentant macho male fantasy…we’d already been geared to accept a female M in the Brosnan years
I see the revisionism/deconstruction starting in Moonraker, when Bond meets Dr Goodhead. The dialog presents him as the one with a sexist attitude. He never really is the Austin Powers type again after that.
I knew I was in for trouble when CR featured that “memorable” shot of Craig emerging from the sea in his speedos, showing off his gym bod…because, you know, the James Bond movies have always been about the exploitation of the male body…
you are hereby also assigned to rewatch the Connery films. They objectified the heck out of Connery's hairy-chested he-man torso. He was a former Mr Universe and they exploited that. The gratuitous decontamination scene in Dr No for example, his torso is being glorified just as much as Ursula Andress's.
(and if you want more, for extra credit watch Zardoz!)
I'm not sure if this tread is intentionally antagonistic or a genuine subject of interest to the OP ?:)
I can understand some Bond fans watching the last 5 films and concluding that Bond has gone in a direction that they don't care for, after dad I lost all faith in bond and just contented myself with the back catalogue.
Thankfully Dc's casting piqued my interest and I loved CR.....all the way through.
With CR Bond was dangerous again. I left the
Cinema on a cloud. It was also great to see
Some Fleming in Bond again -{ only my opinion
But..... Great film It's up there with OHMSS .
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
On my blog I have a long-winded review of Kingsley Amis’s “The James Bond Dossier,” and in the comments thread I stumbled upon a similar realization as now – namely, that Amis’s wonderful book is basically a guideline as to what once made Bond so dangerous. It’s hard to believe now, but there was a time when Bond – literary and cinematic version – was considered dangerous, or at least a bad role model. The early books about Bond are all mostly apologies for Fleming’s creation, from Amis’s study to Boyd’s “The Devil With James Bond” (one of my favorites).
Totally agree, and those two books (which I bought and read at the time, in the 1960s- yes, I know how old that makes me- and have re-read many times since) are essential texts for anyone wishing to understand the literary Bond. In fact I agree with many of your points, but (nitpicking, I know)- M's secretary is called Moneypenny.
Digressing (or waffling on, as I'm prone to do)- the Miss Moneypenny character plays a minor role in Fleming, her main purpose being some mild flirtation with 007 on his way in or out of M's office. She does "dream hopelessly" about him, but that's about as far as it goes. The films have (quite correctly, in my view) expanded a bit on this but I would agree that in recent times (SF, SP) they've taken it too far. I believe that this parallels the expansion of M's role, and for the same reason: having M played by a name star capable of carrying a movie in their own right (Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes have both done exactly that) tempts a writer, director or producer to use that name star for more than sitting behind a desk giving orders in the first 5 or 10 minutes of the movie. Naomie Harris is an excellent and capable (and extremely attractive) actress who a writer, director or producer- the repetition is because I don't know which!- would feel is wasted getting the two or three lines Lois Maxwell used to get back in the day.
No, Fleming would never have conceived of M as a woman or Moneypenny as black- in the fifties, that just wouldn't happen in the UK as Revolver66 said above. Times have changed, and the Bond films reflect those changes. They have to.
I have to admit I haven’t actually watched a Brosnan movie from beginning to end since DAD, when it was first released. (And I’ve never even seen TWINE.)
Add to that that you've only watched the first half of CR and nothing since, and the weight we should give to at least some of your opinions decreases. For example, there's a reason why Eve is portrayed initially as an "action girl" in SF: it's backstory, and the viewer is hopefully not going to realise who she really is until the end of the film.
Thanks for the nice reply! And my misspelling of Moneypenny is a consistent thing. At least I spelled "Bond" correctly!
I see what you are all saying about me actually watching the Craig movies, but this isn't a new revelation -- on post 1, page 1, I wrote right there that I only got through the first half of CR 12 years ago and couldn't take it any more. And nothing I've seen (or read about) the ensuing films has made me want to go back to the reboot. And sure, I COULD watch those Craig Bonds...or I could just re-watch a Connery Bond!!! (Which one is the "snark" emoticon?)
And for the final time, you also COULD make thread about something you understand but then again, it's the precious attention you get from people who don't understand the mindset of someone who's talking about their 12 year old, misinformed prejudices about one of the best films of the franchise that you walked out of halfway through and is still discussing, even if, in my book, you have no right to since you didn't actually finish the film.
Form your own opinions, retry.
Also, I can't fathom how people can pay for a ticket at the cinema and walk away. Sure the film could suck but give it a chance until the end. That's being disrespectful to all the man hours that went into the production of a movie and a terrible way to waste your money.
But then again... that's merely MY opinion, take it anyway you wish.
It's a genuine subject of interest that was just presented a little too antagonistically -- sorry about that!
your other posts round the forum do demonstrate a genuine, intelligent interest in what Fleming wrote and other similar spy fiction.
You can balance out all the folks here who watch all the movies but have never read the books! (c'mon, you folks got some homework to do, too!)
I shall have to take a look at your Book Review blog.
And for the final time, you also COULD make thread about something you understand but then again, it's the precious attention you get from people who don't understand the mindset of someone who's talking about their 12 year old, misinformed prejudices about one of the best films of the franchise that you walked out of halfway through and is still discussing, even if, in my book, you have no right to since you didn't actually finish the film.
I've read this sentence three times and am still not understanding it! If I take your meaning to be that I'm looking for attention, that isn't it at all -- I registered on this forum just to finally be a part of it after reading it for so many years, not to "get attention." And also, as for the second part of your comment, I rented CR, thus it was a fairly simple process to hit the "eject" button and return the disc -- no "walking out of the theater" necessary! )
And by the way -- I'm over there in the "literature" thread defending your "shrugs shoulder" post!!
you are hereby also assigned to rewatch the Connery films. They objectified the heck out of Connery's hairy-chested he-man torso. He was a former Mr Universe and they exploited that. The gratuitous decontamination scene in Dr No for example, his torso is being glorified just as much as Ursula Andress's.
(and if you want more, for extra credit watch Zardoz!)
For some strange reason, every time I watch that decontamination scene all I seem to notice is Ursula Andress!
Speaking of which Dr. No was a revelation in Blu Ray...I had that one on VHS as a kid and enjoyed it, but I think if anything it's only improved with age -- currently I'd rank it as my third favorite in the franchise, after TB and YOLT (and I totally get it why a lot of fans don't like either of those movies). The movie is very Flemingesque, even down to some of the incidental dialog -- something I only noticed because I happened to be reading LALD the last time I watched DN, and I noticed that Dr No's radsuited goons used a line ("Unless you want an extra hole," or somesuch) that I'd just encountered in LALD. (And also...I just love those pastel-colored radsuits!)
Now as for Zardoz...I've not only seen the film but I've read the damn book!! That's another one I reviewed on my blog a few years ago -- I won't post a link to it as I think I've met my quota for the day and don't want to annoy anyone (more than I already have).
Yes, I apologize for that, and it didn't come off near in the way I intended to. In fact if I'd bothered to sit on that writeup before posting it, that line no doubt would've jumped out at me in the edit and I would've deleted it before posting.
I'm not sure if this tread is intentionally antagonistic or a genuine subject of interest to the OP
It's a genuine subject of interest that was just presented a little too antagonistically -- sorry about that!
There is no need for apologies, you are entitled to your opinion, there has been no shortage of antagonists on this forum who are simply out to cause trouble and troll, thankfully the community here is diligent and quick to defend the forum, which is a good thing I think.
The mods also do a remarkable job on AJB to.ensure the forum remains problem free while still allowing free flowing discussion, no small feat on an international forum.
Craig is fine as Bond, though the films don't allow him to have much emotional range -- oh, he's fine tough and fine devastated, but there's not much to do in between. Casino Royale remains the gold standard of his films, with an actual story and a topnotch cast. The rest are uneven. It didn't help that though Craig now has a long tenure in the role, they've only managed to make four films that are essentially serialized into one long story.
Yes, I apologize for that, and it didn't come off near in the way I intended to. In fact if I'd bothered to sit on that writeup before posting it, that line no doubt would've jumped out at me in the edit and I would've deleted it before posting.
K Amis wasn't a fan of the iconic SWLM opening with the union jack parachute, very dismissive of it. And the great critic John Brosnan loved GF and tended to criticise very other film increasingly after that, though still professing to be a Bond fan. It just became an exercise in nitpicking albeit very wittily done. It seems though every fan has a personal 'jump the shark' moment that will be someone else's moment of brilliance.
Comments
?
everybody else has already called you on this so I wont pile on, but an uninformed opinion is worthless. Do your homework and watch those last four movies, then make up your own mind. and No cheating by reading spoilers, some of the above discussion is already giving away the stories.
The hilarious thing is for someone who talks about Fleming "rolling in his grave": you bailed on the movie just before the Fleming content. (sorry, that was spoilers too).
that said...
I do wonder what Fleming woulda thought ... about just about everything from Goldfinger on. He said and did some outrageous stuff, and strikes me as someone who delighted in provoking a reaction in others. I think he himself was actually much more progressive than we give him credit for, from the safe distance of 50 years later, and he claimed Bond was more leftleaning than himself.
A lot of the most objectionable content in the books is coming from M's mouth, M is an oldschool reactionary. But some right filth does often appear in Bond's own internal thoughts (e.g.: the side effects of having given women the vote). I just tell myself Bond is not intended to be a role model, he is the peculiar type of personality who would take the job of government assassin, thus probably an eensy bit warped. I don't know if we can assume Fleming himself actually shared some of the more objectionable opinions he assigned to his protagonist.
Still, Fleming was always eager to sell his character for filmrights and get rich quick. He must of known the character would evolve once in the hands of others.
I see the revisionism/deconstruction starting in Moonraker, when Bond meets Dr Goodhead. The dialog presents him as the one with a sexist attitude. He never really is the Austin Powers type again after that.
you are hereby also assigned to rewatch the Connery films. They objectified the heck out of Connery's hairy-chested he-man torso. He was a former Mr Universe and they exploited that. The gratuitous decontamination scene in Dr No for example, his torso is being glorified just as much as Ursula Andress's.
(and if you want more, for extra credit watch Zardoz!)
I can understand some Bond fans watching the last 5 films and concluding that Bond has gone in a direction that they don't care for, after dad I lost all faith in bond and just contented myself with the back catalogue.
Thankfully Dc's casting piqued my interest and I loved CR.....all the way through.
Cinema on a cloud. It was also great to see
Some Fleming in Bond again -{ only my opinion
But..... Great film It's up there with OHMSS .
Thanks for the nice reply! And my misspelling of Moneypenny is a consistent thing. At least I spelled "Bond" correctly!
I see what you are all saying about me actually watching the Craig movies, but this isn't a new revelation -- on post 1, page 1, I wrote right there that I only got through the first half of CR 12 years ago and couldn't take it any more. And nothing I've seen (or read about) the ensuing films has made me want to go back to the reboot. And sure, I COULD watch those Craig Bonds...or I could just re-watch a Connery Bond!!! (Which one is the "snark" emoticon?)
It's a genuine subject of interest that was just presented a little too antagonistically -- sorry about that!
Form your own opinions, retry.
Also, I can't fathom how people can pay for a ticket at the cinema and walk away. Sure the film could suck but give it a chance until the end. That's being disrespectful to all the man hours that went into the production of a movie and a terrible way to waste your money.
But then again... that's merely MY opinion, take it anyway you wish.
You can balance out all the folks here who watch all the movies but have never read the books! (c'mon, you folks got some homework to do, too!)
I shall have to take a look at your Book Review blog.
I've read this sentence three times and am still not understanding it! If I take your meaning to be that I'm looking for attention, that isn't it at all -- I registered on this forum just to finally be a part of it after reading it for so many years, not to "get attention." And also, as for the second part of your comment, I rented CR, thus it was a fairly simple process to hit the "eject" button and return the disc -- no "walking out of the theater" necessary!
And by the way -- I'm over there in the "literature" thread defending your "shrugs shoulder" post!!
Well? Are you expecting a thank you?
Well, about that...no-one forced you to and I have no obligation to.
But here...thanks.
You never did mention that you rented it, that's a whole different ballgame and I took it literally.
For some strange reason, every time I watch that decontamination scene all I seem to notice is Ursula Andress!
Speaking of which Dr. No was a revelation in Blu Ray...I had that one on VHS as a kid and enjoyed it, but I think if anything it's only improved with age -- currently I'd rank it as my third favorite in the franchise, after TB and YOLT (and I totally get it why a lot of fans don't like either of those movies). The movie is very Flemingesque, even down to some of the incidental dialog -- something I only noticed because I happened to be reading LALD the last time I watched DN, and I noticed that Dr No's radsuited goons used a line ("Unless you want an extra hole," or somesuch) that I'd just encountered in LALD. (And also...I just love those pastel-colored radsuits!)
Now as for Zardoz...I've not only seen the film but I've read the damn book!! That's another one I reviewed on my blog a few years ago -- I won't post a link to it as I think I've met my quota for the day and don't want to annoy anyone (more than I already have).
Yes, I apologize for that, and it didn't come off near in the way I intended to. In fact if I'd bothered to sit on that writeup before posting it, that line no doubt would've jumped out at me in the edit and I would've deleted it before posting.
There we go with the double standards again *sarcastic 8-) * (I had to, I'm sorry
The mods also do a remarkable job on AJB to.ensure the forum remains problem free while still allowing free flowing discussion, no small feat on an international forum.
I accept your explanation.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Now that was funny!!