@The Midi-chlorian Count The more you make it about me, the less relevance you have to the topic. I've covered a lot of ground regarding the thematic and stylistic content of this and other Bond movies. Not so much from you.

Ftr, I have seen your comments on other Bond boards where you quite happily list the worst Bond films. No explanations either, just laundry lists. So stop with the special pleading, or is it projection, who can say...

By all means take your toys and play somewhere else.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash I agree with you re the Craig Bond movies. I rated each of the succeeding movies lower. I don't think that's a 'formula' issue; they are all well made movies, at least technically. I think the scripts got weaker with each effort. And that whole 'damsel in distress' stuff they kept returning to got tedious. I think I understand what they are trying to do with the character; to give him a soul, someone who actually loves and cares about women. I don't think the problem is that it isn't Bond, I think the problem is that it is replaces one sexist trope with another. In old Bond we have him making love to three different women in each movie, now new Bond falling in love in every movie, and with women he knows nothing about and has only known the proverbial 5 minutes. Better scripts would have paced that out better.

Yeah, trying to portray Bond as falling in love with every woman did miss the initial point. The point of Casino Royale being a prequel was to show how Bond came to be the cold, heartless womanizer we know. He doesn't want to get too close to women because he's afraid of losing them. But after that film the writers seemed to totally change their minds and make him pine after each Bond girl like a douche . This kind of undid the good work done by Casino Royale.

I don't think we will ever see the dinosaur Bond back. The smoking absolutely never. The excessive lovemaking, maybe. The boozing will fade away. It's enough that he's a killing machine that knows the difference between a grand cru and a premier cru.

That's who Bond is. It's intrinsic to the character and (with regards to the more recent Brosnan years at least) I don't necessarily agree with the description of his behavior as predatory as I'm not one of those that buys into this new narrative being peddled that absolutely everything is sexual harassment. There is a massive, massive difference between having promiscuous sex and Harvey Weinstein. And it doesn't reserve you a place next to Hitler in the lowest circle of Hell. Whether or not Bond womanizing makes him a bad person is definitely debatable and that's a fair opinion to have. But there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to portray that in film (or even explore that aspect of his character in a layered 3 dimensional way as the Craig films should have done). And Bond is supposed to be a bit of an anti-hero anyway, he's supposed to be a bit morally grey.

(I haven't seen the Connery or Moore films in quite a while so if he was a bit pushy back then I can't really remember).

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash I agree with you re the Craig Bond movies. I rated each of the succeeding movies lower. I don't think that's a 'formula' issue; they are all well made movies, at least technically. I think the scripts got weaker with each effort. And that whole 'damsel in distress' stuff they kept returning to got tedious. I think I understand what they are trying to do with the character; to give him a soul, someone who actually loves and cares about women. I don't think the problem is that it isn't Bond, I think the problem is that it is replaces one sexist trope with another. In old Bond we have him making love to three different women in each movie, now new Bond falling in love in every movie, and with women he knows nothing about and has only known the proverbial 5 minutes. Better scripts would have paced that out better.

Yeah, trying to portray Bond as falling in love with every woman did miss the initial point. The point of Casino Royale being a prequel was to show how Bond came to be the cold, heartless womanizer we know. He doesn't want to get too close to women because he's afraid of losing them. But after that film the writers seemed to totally change their minds and make him pine after each Bond girl like a douche . This kind of undid the good work done by Casino Royale.

I don't think we will ever see the dinosaur Bond back. The smoking absolutely never. The excessive lovemaking, maybe. The boozing will fade away. It's enough that he's a killing machine that knows the difference between a grand cru and a premier cru.

That's who Bond is. It's intrinsic to the character and (with regards to the more recent Brosnan years at least) I don't necessarily agree with the description of his behavior as predatory as I'm not one of those that buys into this new narrative being peddled that absolutely everything is sexual harassment. There is a massive, massive difference between having promiscuous sex and Harvey Weinstein. And it doesn't reserve you a place next to Hitler in the lowest circle of Hell. Whether or not Bond womanizing makes him a bad person is definitely debatable and that's a fair opinion to have. But there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to portray that in film (or even explore that aspect of his character in a layered 3 dimensional way as the Craig films should have done). And Bond is supposed to be a bit of an anti-hero anyway, he's supposed to be a bit morally grey.

(I haven't seen the Connery or Moore films in quite a while so if he was a bit pushy back then I can't really remember).

Agreed.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@The Midi-chlorian Count The more you make it about me, the less relevance you have to the topic. I've covered a lot of ground regarding the thematic and stylistic content of this and other Bond movies. Not so much from you.

Ftr, I have seen your comments on other Bond boards where you quite happily list the worst Bond films. No explanations either, just laundry lists. So stop with the special pleading, or is it projection, who can say...

By all means take your toys and play somewhere else.

😂 seriously dude? You're the guy posting on a Bond film board saying it's "easily" the worst then saying over and over again the reason you don't like it being the all traits of proper Bond films. Of course it's about you, and I'm discussing how your dislike for Bond films in general makes your subjective opinion on one particular Bond film irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Another analogy for you would be to find an 80s music site and post on, say, the Duran Duran board "You know what, I hate 80s music. All those synthesizers, saxophones, over productions. Ughhh, horrible! But Duran Duran, they're easily the worst".

No one who's actually a fan of 80s music is going to give two hoots what you've written. Same goes for here. You like something completely different and that's absolutely fine. To be fair, you did say to in your OP:-

And that is saying something. Some Bond entries have been really bad.

So clearly not a fan, and what's this "take your toys and play somewhere else" garbage? Are you a twelve year old? You don't like what's being said, so you'd rather people didn't contest the rubbish you're writing?!

Better to simply meekly fall silent once one recognises the futility of their argument has been called out which is something I now hope you will show the good grace in doing...

@JustinJackFlash When people say something is intrinsic to the Bond character they are usually talking about a very specific era in the film franchise. But when you go back and watch them sequentially, as I have just done, the variations start to jump out.

Take smoking for example. With Connery it was cigarettes. Moore, so far as I noticed, only smoked cigars. With Dalton it was back to cigarettes. Early Brosnan was a non smoker; in one scene his Bond throws a cigar into a waste basket calling it a 'filthy habit'. Later in his run he is back smoking cigars. Craig's Bond doesn't seem to smoke. I could go thru other Bond features like drinking and philandering and point out how there are inconsistencies over the franchise but that would probably start another argument. ;-) Just a quick note on the 'historic' Bond treatment of women- this was a real problem. Even fans of the day objected to how Plenty O'Toole was treated in Diamond Are Forever. And that's just one example.

The point is none of these character traits are set in stone, and nor do they need to be, and, if a character is to move with the times, change is obligatory unless it becomes a period franchise forever set in the mid to late 20th century. We are not slaves to the past.

If the high camp zaniness of Bond of the Moore and Brosnan eras appeals to some people that's a good result and I have repeatedly said so. But I stand by my criticism of Die Another Day. Something is wrong when a Bond movie is sillier than Get Smart or Austin Powers.

What makes Austin Powers funny is that we have a spy walking around and for him it's still the 1960s. It's a pointed and obvious reference to the Bond films. It works as a satire because audiences recognise what they see as something funky in the 'source' material.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash When people say something is intrinsic to the Bond character they are usually talking about a very specific era in the film franchise. But when you go back and watch them sequentially, as I have just done, the variations start to jump out.

Take smoking for example. With Connery it was cigarettes. Moore, so far as I noticed, only smoked cigars. With Dalton it was back to cigarettes. Early Brosnan was a non smoker; in one scene his Bond throws a cigar into a waste basket calling it a 'filthy habit'. Later in his run he is back smoking cigars. Craig's Bond doesn't seem to smoke. I could go thru other Bond features like drinking and philandering and point out how there are inconsistencies over the franchise but that would probably start another argument. ;-) Just a quick note on the 'historic' Bond treatment of women- this was a real problem. Even fans of the day objected to how Plenty O'Toole was treated in Diamond Are Forever. And that's just one example.

The point is none of these character traits are set in stone, and nor do they need to be, and, if a character is to move with the times, change is obligatory unless it becomes a period franchise forever set in the mid to late 20th century. We are not slaves to the past.

If the high camp zaniness of Bond of the Moore and Brosnan eras appeals to some people that's a good result and I have repeatedly said so. But I stand by my criticism of Die Another Day. Something is wrong when a Bond movie is sillier than Get Smart or Austin Powers.

What makes Austin Powers funny is that we have a spy walking around and for him it's still the 1960s. It's a pointed and obvious reference to the Bond films. It works as a satire because audiences recognise what they see as something funky in the 'source' material.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And you can certainly see that the earlier Bonds are from a different time. But when it comes to smoking and drinking, those are pretty irrelevant things when it comes to his character. Bond is and always has been a ladies man. That is an essential component. It's a part of his psychological make up. He doesn't have to be how he was in the earlier days but to some extent he does have to be a womanizer.

And when you say the character has to move with the times, those current "moving times" you are referring to are not natural progressional moving times. They are an agenda the media and certain loud and opinionated groups are trying to force on everyone else. An agenda the vast majority of people reject, not because these groups don't have some fair points to make, but because they are too extreme. Neutering Bond is one of these extremities. And as I said, even if this is bad behaviour, there is no reason why it shouldn't be explored. To throw away this aspect of his character completely feels like giving in to censorship and control. It doesn't feel like changing with the times. It doesn't feel like being creative with the character. And most importantly- it feels like writing a character how he "idealistically" should be rather than how he actually is, flaws and all. A betrayal of art.

It could be written in a different way. Written more realistically, maybe given a messiness to reflect real life more. The Bond girls written with more depth so they feel like real people. This is how the films should change with the times. Not by erasing this element completely or making Bond constantly lovesick.

Certainly not my intention to invoke any kind of censorship. Movie making is a collaborative form, for a movie the size of Bond films, employing many thousands of cast and crew. It is also a commercial enterprise involving hundreds of millions of dollars. So the producers need to be mindful of public sensibilities as very real commercial considerations. A painter can paint whatever the hell he wants and if a gallery won't put it on public display there are plenty of private art collectors. And if there are no takers it has only cost him the price of a canvas and paint. Very different for a movie maker.

I haven't read Fleming's stories but from what I have read, of the old Bond, only Connery and Dalton came close to an authentic portrayal. Craig is said to capture a lot of the literary Bond without looking much like him. Moore and Brosnan were a long way off. I can't speak to the truth of any of that but that is what reputable sources say. So those who are arguing for a return to a more 'authentic' Bond are coming from a very strange place. The depictions they prefer are the departures, not the other way around.

Personally I have no issue with Bond drinking or womanising. I have a problem with being told Bond wants his martini shaken not stirred in every movie. We get it. After nearly 60 years and more than 20 movies, how could we not? It can be rested, along with all the product placements that are a part of that.

I have no issue with sex on screen either. Again, I get it that Bond is supposed to be kind of damaged emotionally, but what I am talking about is an adjustment to the women in that half of the equation. They don't need to always be depicted as succumbing to him or being rescued by him. Giving them actual agency means better writing. The idea that women can't and really should not, be depicted on screen as tho it were still 1965, but more like women in the 21st century, isn't a censorship issue. It's just me wanting a script that doesn't read like something written by an adolescent schoolboy.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Certainly not my intention to invoke any kind of censorship. Movie making is a collaborative form, for a movie the size of Bond films, employing many thousands of cast and crew. It is also a commercial enterprise involving hundreds of millions of dollars. So the producers need to be mindful of public sensibilities as very real commercial considerations. A painter can paint whatever the hell he wants and if a gallery won't put it on public display there are plenty of private art collectors. And if there are no takers it has only cost him the price of a canvas and paint. Very different for a movie maker.

Yes, I can recognize that as a problem. But I do think movie studios surrender to it too easily. The film would unfortunately be savaged by critics no matter how good it was. But on the other hand a franchise as big as Bond could maybe win out with audiences regardless. Who knows.

I haven't read Fleming's stories but from what I have read, of the old Bond, only Connery and Dalton came close to an authentic portrayal. Craig is said to capture a lot of the literary Bond without looking much like him. Moore and Brosnan were a long way off. I can't speak to the truth of any of that but that is what reputable sources say. So those who are arguing for a return to a more 'authentic' Bond are coming from a very strange place. The depictions they prefer are the departures, not the other way around.

I'd say that no matter what he is in the books it's the film depiction that has become the character everyone knows. And that's who the character is generally regarded to be. But I guess this is a subjective thing.

I have read a couple of the books. And i can't really remember them very well so I couldn't reputably tell you which portrayal is closest to them. But they were nothing special. And this is just a guess, but I would imagine that the only reason the books are well known are because of the films.

I have no issue with sex on screen either. Again, I get it that Bond is supposed to be kind of damaged emotionally, but what I am talking about is an adjustment to the women in that half of the equation. They don't need to always be depicted as succumbing to him or being rescued by him. Giving them actual agency means better writing. The idea that women can't and really should not, be depicted on screen as tho it were still 1965, but more like women in the 21st century, isn't a censorship issue. It's just me wanting a script that doesn't read like something written by an adolescent schoolboy.

I completely agree with this. And I think we have pinpointed where the problem really lies. It's more the writing of the women. And I would like to see what you have described in future films.

I agree with you that the film Bond is its own thing, that has become independent of its source material. The Bond character can change in the future, just like it has changed in the past.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

And that is saying something. Some Bond entries have been really bad. This is stupid and badly made in just about every way you could think.

For example, Bond 'jokes' have almost always been groaners, but here they are not only shockers but occur exactly where a joke shouldn't be. In the middle of an action scene? This is from professional writers ffs.

Entire plot elements recycled from previous movies, and not even the better bits. And then ridiculous things like gene rebuilding, invisible cars and magic death rays thrown in. Parts of the story make zero sense at all. Why for example does Moon need to go the west and create a new identity? Is there a reason that a nose and eye job won't do the trick? The gene transfer is excruciatingly painful and means you will never sleep again. Why does Tang go thru the same procedure yet it only changes his eye colour? And the diamonds are left in his face. That's sort of a dead giveaway as to his identity. I can't think of a reason why diamonds would need to stay in his face or why they wouldn't be the first thing he'd have fixed. Why can't Moon build his death ray in North Korea, he is, after all going back there at the end of the movie. What is Frost's motivation? There is some reference to Moon turning her when the winner of the fencing Olympic gold medal was killed, but, wait, wtf, what has that to do with anything? Later M says it was significant that they were on the same fencing team at Harvard. Again, wtf? How does that make you a traitor and a murderer? Why is Frost in a bikini top on a military flight to North Korea of all places? The stupidity just goes on and on and on and I could go on and on listing all the reasons why this is such a bad movie.

I get it that it's a Bond film and meant to be fantastical, But jeez, there are limits and this movie is just insulting.

Invisible car technology is actually possible these days using some complicated reflection technique as announced by the military so it's not as wacky as primitive idiots think it is.

'Primitive idiots'?

@mechajutaro said:

@Adammm said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

And that is saying something. Some Bond entries have been really bad. This is stupid and badly made in just about every way you could think.

For example, Bond 'jokes' have almost always been groaners, but here they are not only shockers but occur exactly where a joke shouldn't be. In the middle of an action scene? This is from professional writers ffs.

Entire plot elements recycled from previous movies, and not even the better bits. And then ridiculous things like gene rebuilding, invisible cars and magic death rays thrown in. Parts of the story make zero sense at all. Why for example does Moon need to go the west and create a new identity? Is there a reason that a nose and eye job won't do the trick? The gene transfer is excruciatingly painful and means you will never sleep again. Why does Tang go thru the same procedure yet it only changes his eye colour? And the diamonds are left in his face. That's sort of a dead giveaway as to his identity. I can't think of a reason why diamonds would need to stay in his face or why they wouldn't be the first thing he'd have fixed. Why can't Moon build his death ray in North Korea, he is, after all going back there at the end of the movie. What is Frost's motivation? There is some reference to Moon turning her when the winner of the fencing Olympic gold medal was killed, but, wait, wtf, what has that to do with anything? Later M says it was significant that they were on the same fencing team at Harvard. Again, wtf? How does that make you a traitor and a murderer? Why is Frost in a bikini top on a military flight to North Korea of all places? The stupidity just goes on and on and on and I could go on and on listing all the reasons why this is such a bad movie.

I get it that it's a Bond film and meant to be fantastical, But jeez, there are limits and this movie is just insulting.

Invisible car technology is actually possible these days using some complicated reflection technique as announced by the military so it's not as wacky as primitive idiots think it is.

Of how much use would an invisible care be though? It's almost guaranteed that other drivers are going to crash into you

I guess like in every Bond film since the beginning of time he'll just have to use the invisible car or invisible care when he's in danger at a villain's isolated location like any other gadget he has previously used?? Not when driving to the supermarket?

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

My bottom three:-
The World is Not Enough
Licence to Kill
Quantum of Solace

Die Another Day not even close. Quite common for fans of Daniel Craig's "Bond" films to criticize this one but the reality is that daft CGI aside it's not bad, in fact the first half is up there with some of the best.

Very successful at the time as well - biggest Box Office for a Bond film at time of release.

The speedboat chase in the river Thames in The World is Not Enough was good.

@mechajutaro said:

I guess like in every Bond film since the beginning of time he'll just have to use the invisible car or invisible care when he's in danger at a villain's isolated location like any other gadget he has previously used?? Not when driving to the supermarket?

Machine guns and missiles built into a BMW are clearly useful if one's being pursued by trained killers, even if the existence of such things is far fetched. Turning your ride invisible during a chase is moronic in the extreme, given that another drive is just going to crash into you, thus undercutting your attempt to escape your pursuers

Having a secret agent taking out terrorists all over the world while we now have drones to do that instead is equally moronic, if logic and realism is what you've come to see in a Bond film then you're in the wrong business. Villains usually chase from behind not in front a invisible car should have no problem.

@Adammm said:

@mechajutaro said:

I guess like in every Bond film since the beginning of time he'll just have to use the invisible car or invisible care when he's in danger at a villain's isolated location like any other gadget he has previously used?? Not when driving to the supermarket?

Machine guns and missiles built into a BMW are clearly useful if one's being pursued by trained killers, even if the existence of such things is far fetched. Turning your ride invisible during a chase is moronic in the extreme, given that another drive is just going to crash into you, thus undercutting your attempt to escape your pursuers

Having a secret agent taking out terrorists all over the world while we now have drones to do that instead is equally moronic, if logic and realism is what you've come to see in a Bond film then you're in the wrong business. Villains usually chase from behind not in front a invisible car should have no problem.

You can only use weaponised drones in actual war zones.

I can't believe you are taking the invisible car thing seriously.