Bond is Overrated

[Camfan]

Well I have yet to see quantum of solace, I've heard it's awful, however I also agree that new Bond is not true Bond. But then Old Bond is not true Bond either as far as I'm concerned, the Bond from the books is the best, a highly trained, deadly and cruel man. Very very cruel in fact, they're a joy to read. Especially in their archaic-ness.

[Camfan]

Oh yeah, moonraker sucked

[Seraph]

Double post badness.

Originally Posted by Seraph

No gadgets? Now that's just cruel.


Seriously though, if you rewrite the whole thing, it wouldn't be Bond and you'd piss off the only people that watch them because it's got nothing to do with the 50 odd films that came before. It's a serialisation, like the old tv series, one adventure after another with the same structure - that's the point. Each one is made so they can make another, they're not looking to make a super duper blow everything else out of the water blockbuster, they're looking for a steady revenue. That's why they play safe.

You want something completely different to Bond? Then watch Bourne Supremecey or xXx (I dare you ).


Brocolli.

I take this back, every word. Casino Royale is by far and away my favourite Bond movie. Quantum of Solace was disappointing by comparison because it got so incredibly lost - sure it had a plot....somewhere.

[Camfan]

So I finally saw Quantum of Solace, not as bad as all the reviews I read made it out to be, but still, a very confused film. Somewhat similar to a drunk concussed man. However not terrible. But certainly nowhere near as tight as Casino Royale.

And I apologise for my previous double postey badness

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

Bond films just bore the **** out of me.

[HighWiredSith]

QOS suffered from what could best be described as modern action film technique - the entire hyper-edit/shaky camera thing has gone totally out of control. You can't help but feel that these directors are covering for their lack of real directing talent. When you lack the expertise to choreograph a fight scene you apparently cover by pushing the camera so close to the action all you really see are body parts flying. There was a real lack of genuine plot of film direction here - like Crank or something. Forgettable entry, if Casion Royale took the series a stop forward, this was at least a half step back.

[Camfan]

Please allow me to quote you some of Ian Fleming's masterpiece that is Goldfinger. Make of it what you will (personally I think it's rather funny)

"Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterton was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male coutnerparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and 'sex equality'. As a result of fity years of emancipation, femenine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits - barren and full of frstrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied."

How wonderfully archaic is that!!!

Not sure if that was Fleming's opinion also (though I think it probably was) or if he was attributing uber-maleness upon Bond. Anyway, just thought I'd share!

[floyd]

if Casion Royale took the series a stop forward, this was at least a half step back.

You have to admit "a stop forward" is kind of a Freudian slip.


There's something I need to come to terms with that I'm having difficulty with regarding the bond movies. I saw every Brosnan bond movie in the theater (most of them at the drive-in) and I only liked Goldeneye. I saw both of the Craig bond movies at the drive-in too... yet I liked both of them. I need to make this make sense, but I'm not having any luck. By Sith's logic am I just a sucker for the way the modern action movie is edited post Brosnan? That can't be the case because I don't like most modern action flicks (eg: Bourne 3, Crank [aptly mentioned], Wanted, etc.). What is so subtlely different that it escapes me, yet is enough to influence my opinion? I've already ruled the obvious out, I think, you may need to help me on that.

While I was watching QOS I remember thinking during many of the scenes, "that's exactly what I would have done," cinematically. Maybe it's as simple as that. It looked and felt the way I like it. I honestly don't know.

Now brace yourself for the most negative review of QOS I've ever read: Maddox.

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

Yes, if a certain evil villain gets his way, 60% of the water in Bolivia will cost more.

Nothing to laugh about. That **** is serious. The privatization of water systems is a MAJOR ****ing concern. We have more reason to be worried about that than some absurd schmuck living in a highly implausible skull-shaped volcano island moonbase. I think it's kind of awesome that Bond is finally going after real bad guys like the World Bank and Bechtel. But since when does Bond actually fight the REAL villains who are actually working for world domination? All these years I thought that the mother****er was bankrolled by them.

[Camfan]

Originally Posted by floyd

There's something I need to come to terms with that I'm having difficulty with regarding the bond movies. I saw every Brosnan bond movie in the theater (most of them at the drive-in) and I only liked Goldeneye.

Nothing to comes to term with mate, Goldeneye was a great Bond movie, helped proabably mostly by a decent if ridiculous story and mostly Sean Bean playing a nicely convincing anti-Bond. All the other villains after that were ****e. All the best Bond movies stick out in my memory mostly because of the villains. Dr. No, Grant, Goldfinger, Baron Samedi and Kananga, Blofeld (Donald Pleasance, not Telly Savalas)

As for new Bond, Bond has always tried to move with the times, and I think it has done so fairly admirably with the new installments. The main problem for me with QOS was they tried to do too much and in the end just got a rather Strauss like discordant mess.

We'll see what the next one's like.

[HighWiredSith]

Originally Posted by floyd

You have to admit "a stop forward" is kind of a Freudian slip.


There's something I need to come to terms with that I'm having difficulty with regarding the bond movies. I saw every Brosnan bond movie in the theater (most of them at the drive-in) and I only liked Goldeneye. I saw both of the Craig bond movies at the drive-in too... yet I liked both of them. I need to make this make sense, but I'm not having any luck. By Sith's logic am I just a sucker for the way the modern action movie is edited post Brosnan? That can't be the case because I don't like most modern action flicks (eg: Bourne 3, Crank [aptly mentioned], Wanted, etc.). What is so subtlely different that it escapes me, yet is enough to influence my opinion? I've already ruled the obvious out, I think, you may need to help me on that.

While I was watching QOS I remember thinking during many of the scenes, "that's exactly what I would have done," cinematically. Maybe it's as simple as that. It looked and felt the way I like it. I honestly don't know.

Now brace yourself for the most negative review of QOS I've ever read: Maddox.

Now don't get me wrong - I didn't think the new Bond movie was below average because of the editing. It was simply a horribly dull movie. There is such a thing as being too relevant, too realistic - especially in the context of a man who can dodge bullets, leap about on speeding automobiles, bed hundreds of women without the slightest hint of consequence. Bond is over the top, or should be. Just can't help but feel taking this character and grounding him the real world was a bad idea because, in the end, he ceases to be James Bond and becomes some modern Bourne/Jack Ryan hybrid.

Maybe we've moved beyond James Bond, who knows.