Even though my evaluation of the films is based on how much they keep the spirit of Fleming and Bond in their narrative, it does not prevent me from enjoying the entries that deviate from it or lack it almost entirely. I may nitpick at EON for putting Bond in fashionable Italian suits or
for selling it's soul in the past for box office returns, but if they stopped making them, I'd feel like an old friend had died. We can debate the merits or weaknesses of the different aspects of the films, but we should never devalue the criticisms of others, unless they are devaluing others themselves or being just outright nasty or snobbish.I thoroughly enjoy all the posts and have learned many aspects of the books and films I either had forgotten or had been mistaken about. It's a very enjoyable educational as well as entertaining experience for me.
Same for me. -{
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
In reference to the posts since my last one on this thread, for the most part, that is what I’m talking about. Have a less than glowing opinion of SF/QoS/CR/Craig and you risk get picked apart, short of getting lobotomized. Are my reasoning abilities any less? Are my points and arguments only worth a good double flush and a lit match?
There's a third category of Bond "fan". That's the person who thinks many of the films are crap but likes them because (according to them) they are crap. "They're entertainment." "They're not to be taken seriously." "It's (fill in the blank) a good film as far as Bond films go." They don't like the Craig films because "They're too serious." "They're no fun." "Taking Bond seriously as a character is pretentious." It usually goes hand-in-hand with the criticism "It's not really a Bond film." Then they find some minor plot hole (real or imagined) in a movie like Skyfall and beat it to death, with the suggestion that no Bond film should ever be taken seriously because they're all just fantasy anyway and nothing is supposed to really make any sense in a real world way and this minor plot hole just goes to prove it.
Finally, the criticism that really drives me nuts is "It's a good film, but it's not a good Bond film." Presumably, there weren't enough gadgets or the Bond Girl's breasts weren't quite large enough or the singer of the theme song didn't sound quite enough like Shirley Bassey or some other failing that applies only to "Bond films."
When did it become a crime to think that SF is only a "good," but not great Bond film. My response is not mea culpa to belonging in this "third category of Bond fans," but I just wanted to give an example of how judgement is typically passed on people who give "less than glowing reviews of SF/QoS/CR/Craig," so please allow me my own bit of diagnosis and sweeping generalizations; with a serious lack of objectivity, the Craig devotee enters the discussion with the pre-loaded assumption that the non-Craig films are "crap" when compared of course with "the more serious" Craig films...am I wrong?
In defense of this "third category of Bond fans," sometimes, the prevailing opinion is so powerful that one would be considered out of touch or out of his/her mind if they don't reluctantly concede that the non-Craig films are "crap" in comparision with the "more serious" Craig films. Backed with the prevailing opinion, it can't get any easier to get clinks and high-fives all around to the shame of the dissenting opinion holder.
As far as the allegedly false AJB board agenda of staunchly promoting SF/QoS/CR/Craig sentiments, where then are the board leaders when dissenters are panned and ridiculed by the more troll-like SF/QoS/CR/Craig supporters like it were hunting season? Again, I will press it here, why does it bother the ardent fans that those who aren't as enthusiastic as them may actually exist?
In my opinion, DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS, TLD, LTK, CR, and SF are all good to very good movies. Most of the Moore and Brosnan era are crap.
But that's not important. That's my opinion, although, I think, a well-informed one.
My point was that Bond films should be judged the same way other films are judged. The script, the acting, the direction, the cinematography, etc. Instead, many Bond "fans" take a condescending attitude toward the films and judge them on the criteria like those in my original post because, I suppose, they can't be judged the way real films are judged. Bond films are films and should be judged the same way all films are judged.
A valid opinion, which I can respect. To again touch on your "3rd category Bond fan" paradigm, the "crap" Bond films along with the rest had their share of plot holes/confusing plot twists, poor acting, serious continuity issues, questionable production design, etc., etc., yet those are the same issues that some have with SF, which nonetheless is a masterpiece in popular opinion!!! Opinions are indeed important and when shared with good reasoning, these should be treated with respect, not shunned and grouped together as those "others."
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
As far as the allegedly false AJB board agenda of staunchly promoting SF/QoS/CR/Craig sentiments, where then are the board leaders when dissenters are panned and ridiculed by the more troll-like SF/QoS/CR/Craig supporters like it were hunting season? Again, I will press it here, why does it bother the ardent fans that those who aren't as enthusiastic as them may actually exist?
Nothing 'alleged' about it...it doesn't exist.
If you can give me some examples of these "panned and ridiculed" posts that the "dissenters" have had please...
As I've said...I don't care if you like the films or not...but IF people are going to criticise them then I expect more than just 'his hair colour', 'he looks like a potato', etc...
I hope you don't think that my criticism have generally been shallow and/or baseless . As for those examples, if I manage to find any older or recent examples, I'll let you know, but I will certainly bring to your attention any new ones I come across, Sir Miles.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,510Chief of Staff
I hope you don't think that my criticism have generally been shallow and/or baseless . As for those examples, if I manage to find any older or recent examples, I'll let you know, but I will certainly bring to your attention any new ones I come across, Sir Miles.
Can't say I recall any of your criticisms, either baseless/shallow or valid...so apologies for that....
I really would love to see any examples you find as well....so thanks in advance -{
I hope you don't think that my criticism have generally been shallow and/or baseless . As for those examples, if I manage to find any older or recent examples, I'll let you know, but I will certainly bring to your attention any new ones I come across, Sir Miles.
Can't say I recall any of your criticisms, either baseless/shallow or valid...so apologies for that....
I really would love to see any examples you find as well....so thanks in advance -{
I've seen the word 'daft' applied to folks posting that SF wasn't all that, but usually in a humorous way I think.
I'd rank SF along side the likes of TWINE & TMWTGG (Two films I happen to like a lot, btw) personally. CR is comparable to FRWL, while QOS' ranking is nearer to LTK.
All just my opinion, of course. -{
Skyfall hits Netflix Instant (in the US, at least) this Saturday. -{
I don't know about everyone else, but I own it.
I own it too, I thought I was the only one scratching my head over Netflix's advertising strategy.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Sorry, for a moment I thought I was in the 'Who said this?' Thread
Seriously though it's hard to give much credibility to EON intentionally including this as n anagram, as Barbel has noted. It would have been in the documentaries or mentioned somewhere before now.
Sorry, for a moment I thought I was in the 'Who said this?' Thread
Seriously though it's hard to give much credibility to EON intentionally including this as n anagram, as Barbel has noted. It would have been in the documentaries or mentioned somewhere before now.
It could have been a sub-plot that was scrapped post-production.
My thought is it's more plausible than not and is in keeping with the whole theme of family in the movie.
Possibly, but Even if scrapped in post-production it still would have most likely appeared somewhere in a documentary or article.
And to my mind the sub-plot or theme about family relates to Bond rather than Silva, so "your son's not in HK" would make little or no sense in that context, IMO.
Comments
My bad. I forgot TB. I came back to fix it, but you beat me to it.
Same for me. -{
A valid opinion, which I can respect. To again touch on your "3rd category Bond fan" paradigm, the "crap" Bond films along with the rest had their share of plot holes/confusing plot twists, poor acting, serious continuity issues, questionable production design, etc., etc., yet those are the same issues that some have with SF, which nonetheless is a masterpiece in popular opinion!!! Opinions are indeed important and when shared with good reasoning, these should be treated with respect, not shunned and grouped together as those "others."
I hope you don't think that my criticism have generally been shallow and/or baseless
Can't say I recall any of your criticisms, either baseless/shallow or valid...so apologies for that....
I really would love to see any examples you find as well....so thanks in advance -{
I'd rank SF along side the likes of TWINE & TMWTGG (Two films I happen to like a lot, btw) personally. CR is comparable to FRWL, while QOS' ranking is nearer to LTK.
All just my opinion, of course. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I own it too, I thought I was the only one scratching my head over Netflix's advertising strategy.
HK = Hong Kong.
Credit to Bloomberg news for figuring this out.
Thats not confirmed by EON just somebody's theory so take with a pinch of salt!
M sacrifices Silva in HK for the good of the mission
M sacrifices Bond in Istanbul for the good of the mission.
She's a great bureaucrat but awful parent (or parental figure).
Sorry, for a moment I thought I was in the 'Who said this?' Thread
Seriously though it's hard to give much credibility to EON intentionally including this as n anagram, as Barbel has noted. It would have been in the documentaries or mentioned somewhere before now.
It could have been a sub-plot that was scrapped post-production.
My thought is it's more plausible than not and is in keeping with the whole theme of family in the movie.
And to my mind the sub-plot or theme about family relates to Bond rather than Silva, so "your son's not in HK" would make little or no sense in that context, IMO.
Same article also points out that Raoul Silva is an anagram for "A Rival Soul".