A step too far?

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I read this while currently sitting in Heathrow T2. Time for a vodka martini and a bit of stalking I think.

[morepork]

Classic. Bet you fall asleep on the job.

[Stones of granite]

Classic. Bet you fall asleep on the job.

At his age, it’s noteworthy when he stays awake on the job.

[morepork]

He's probably not even at the airport. He's got lost in his shed again.

[cashead]

I'm trying to understand this and failing. The films that were made in the 60's and 70's were of their time. Is there a suggestion that a Bond film made in 2018 would portray Bond the same way?

I really don't know what to make of it, next someone will be telling me they're not going to make any more Carry on.. films....

The most recent one, Spectre, was pretty fucking awful in that regard though. For me, the worst part was the way in which the Bond Girl, Madelein Swann, was initially portrayed as a Scrappy Doo before being reduced to a crying damsel in distress - something that was particularly egregious when it happened to be in the same calendar year as Rey and Furiosa.

[cashead]

Bond films are dull dinosaurs man. Same basic structure, with some opportunistic rooting of women along the way. Put the franchise out of it's misery, I say. Or make it a comedy.

2 of the last 4 have been excellent though - Casino Royale was a bit problematic, but a fine film nonetheless (media can be problematic and still be good, after all), and Skyfall was brilliant. Quantum of Solace was beset by issues beyond the film production's making and suffered for it, but Spectre was just a piece of shit. Regardless, the people making it can easily adjust their material to suit the times that it's being produced in. It's not like they're even really adapting any of Fleming's work anyway, beyond using characters that he'd written half a century ago.

[Stones of granite]

I'm trying to understand this and failing. The films that were made in the 60's and 70's were of their time. Is there a suggestion that a Bond film made in 2018 would portray Bond the same way?

I really don't know what to make of it, next someone will be telling me they're not going to make any more Carry on.. films....

The most recent one, Spectre, was pretty fucking awful in that regard though. For me, the worst part was the way in which the Bond Girl, Madelein Swann, was initially portrayed as a Scrappy Doo before being reduced to a crying damsel in distress - something that was particularly egregious when it happened to be in the same calendar year as Rey and Furiosa.

Wasn’t Spectre just pish full-stop? I’ve seen it, but I don’t remember much about it.

[cashead]

I'm trying to understand this and failing. The films that were made in the 60's and 70's were of their time. Is there a suggestion that a Bond film made in 2018 would portray Bond the same way?

I really don't know what to make of it, next someone will be telling me they're not going to make any more Carry on.. films....

The most recent one, Spectre, was pretty fucking awful in that regard though. For me, the worst part was the way in which the Bond Girl, Madelein Swann, was initially portrayed as a Scrappy Doo before being reduced to a crying damsel in distress - something that was particularly egregious when it happened to be in the same calendar year as Rey and Furiosa.

Wasn’t Spectre just pish full-stop? I’ve seen it, but I don’t remember much about it.

The treatment of women in that film was just one of a whole slew of problems with that film. Off the top of my head:
1. Bond and Blofeld having a shared past as step-brothers. FUCK OFF.
2. The Bond Girl being a Scrappy Doo, who needs big ol' swinging dick Bond to save her while she's crying because she's a girl. FUCK OFF.
3. It just goes on. And on. And on. And on. Like rowan yammering on about something.
4. The whole Denbigh subplot, which just felt like more clutter to an already cluttered film.
5. The misuse of the Mr. Hinx character. They got former wrestle-man Dave Bautista, who has shown some considerable acting chops in specific roles (think Riddick and Guardians of the Galaxy - in particular the second one, where he was by far the comedic MVP and stole every scene he was in), and they made him almost entirely mute.

The Denbigh/Blofeld shit could've been saved for another film, with this one focusing on Bond uncovering the existence of the Spectre organisation and perhaps learning about Blofeld, with Hinx being portrayed as Bane to Bond's Batman (similarly to how Raoul Silva was similar to the Heath Ledger Joker). That whole thing about him being the guy behind the scenes for all the other villains, manipulating them felt a bit forced and tacked on too, IMO.

[morepork]

Yeah. Shit.

[Digby]

Heathens, there are no bad Bond films!

[Sandydragon]

The most recent one, Spectre, was pretty fucking awful in that regard though. For me, the worst part was the way in which the Bond Girl, Madelein Swann, was initially portrayed as a Scrappy Doo before being reduced to a crying damsel in distress - something that was particularly egregious when it happened to be in the same calendar year as Rey and Furiosa.

Wasn’t Spectre just pish full-stop? I’ve seen it, but I don’t remember much about it.

The treatment of women in that film was just one of a whole slew of problems with that film. Off the top of my head:
1. Bond and Blofeld having a shared past as step-brothers. FUCK OFF.
2. The Bond Girl being a Scrappy Doo, who needs big ol' swinging dick Bond to save her while she's crying because she's a girl. FUCK OFF.
3. It just goes on. And on. And on. And on. Like rowan yammering on about something.
4. The whole Denbigh subplot, which just felt like more clutter to an already cluttered film.
5. The misuse of the Mr. Hinx character. They got former wrestle-man Dave Bautista, who has shown some considerable acting chops in specific roles (think Riddick and Guardians of the Galaxy - in particular the second one, where he was by far the comedic MVP and stole every scene he was in), and they made him almost entirely mute.

The Denbigh/Blofeld shit could've been saved for another film, with this one focusing on Bond uncovering the existence of the Spectre organisation and perhaps learning about Blofeld, with Hinx being portrayed as Bane to Bond's Batman (similarly to how Raoul Silva was similar to the Heath Ledger Joker). That whole thing about him being the guy behind the scenes for all the other villains, manipulating them felt a bit forced and tacked on too, IMO.

Spectre was dire. No arguments there.

[Digby]

Spectre was clunky, but I still enjoyed parts of it. Whether the plot was always a mess, whether it was botched in editing, or maybe a bit of both I don't know, but I'd watch it again happily enough, and I'll watch the next Bond too.

[Sandydragon]

On the whole I enjoy Bond movies, they are decent enough entertainment. I'll stick with the brand despite Spectre, even though I think its one of the weakest in the series.

[Mellsblue]

Spectre was average but anyone who goes to a Bond film to critique the plot/storyline/character relations has pretty much missed the point.
It’s about guns, fights, fast cars, ridiculous and unbelievable stunts and ridiculous and unbelievable gadgets .......and pretty ladies.
Or, as the say in Yorkshire Dales, an average week for Mellsblue.

[morepork]

There's nothing to critique. They all follow the same template.

[Mellsblue]

Exactly. So why the earlier pontificating about the weak plot and sub-plots in Spectre. It’s an action movie based on a fictional character who has jumped cars over rivers whilst completing a barrel roll, flown up to space to fight a giant man with metal teeth and battled baddies in their volcano lairs. Feck me. Worrying about whether someone is related to Bond is fairly low down the list of worries if you want some realism.
On the original point. If my sons ever treat a woman the way Bond does I’ll kill them and then kill myself for being a bad parent. More importantly, if they don’t realise that the barrell roll jump over the river goes against the laws of physics I’ll build a giant submarine, hide it in a volcano, lure everyone member of the human race to said volcano in a Lotus that turns in to a submarine, baffle them with a midget butler and a hall or mirrors, trap them in said submarine and fire them in to space, to be strapped to a table in a space station with a circular saw slowly moving towards their privates only for all of them to miraculously escape. At which point I’ll tell my sons that I have a step-brother who wants to kill me and that as believable as Bond is it’s not really a suitable character to be a role model.

[Digby]

More importantly, if they don’t realise that the barrell roll jump over the river goes against the laws of physics I’ll build a giant submarine

The one from the Man With the Golden Gun? They actually did that I think, the chap had performed it before at a carshow it was bought as a stunt act by Broccoli, or so the story goes

[Mellsblue]

More importantly, if they don’t realise that the barrell roll jump over the river goes against the laws of physics I’ll build a giant submarine

The one from the Man With the Golden Gun? They actually did that I think, the chap had performed it before at a carshow it was bought as a stunt act by Broccoli, or so the story goes

The one with fat American cop. Can’t remember which film. I thought I saw a documentary saying it was impossible due, I think, to something or other. Then again, I thought Chris Cook played flyhalf until he was 18.

[Digby]

More importantly, if they don’t realise that the barrell roll jump over the river goes against the laws of physics I’ll build a giant submarine

The one from the Man With the Golden Gun? They actually did that I think, the chap had performed it before at a carshow it was bought as a stunt act by Broccoli, or so the story goes

The one with fat American cop. Can’t remember which film. I thought I saw a documentary saying it was impossible due, I think, to something or other. Then again, I thought Chris Cook played flyhalf until he was 18.

The Sheriff (JW to his friends) was indeed in TMWTGG, having earlier appeared in Live and Let Die. And based on a quick google it seems they did do the stunt, which I'm pleased about as you now have to make a giant sub

[Mellsblue]

The one from the Man With the Golden Gun? They actually did that I think, the chap had performed it before at a carshow it was bought as a stunt act by Broccoli, or so the story goes

The one with fat American cop. Can’t remember which film. I thought I saw a documentary saying it was impossible due, I think, to something or other. Then again, I thought Chris Cook played flyhalf until he was 18.

The Sheriff (JW to his friends) was indeed in TMWTGG, having earlier appeared in Live and Let Die. And based on a quick google it seems they did do the stunt, which I'm pleased about as you now have to make a giant sub

Meatball Marinara?

[cashead]

Exactly. So why the earlier pontificating about the weak plot and sub-plots in Spectre. It’s an action movie based on a fictional character who has jumped cars over rivers whilst completing a barrel roll, flown up to space to fight a giant man with metal teeth and battled baddies in their volcano lairs. Feck me. Worrying about whether someone is related to Bond is fairly low down the list of worries if you want some realism.

Realism is not the point. Regardless of how far-fetched Bond as a franchise is, adding that extra wrinkle to that relationship was completely unnecessary and pointless. Based on what you've written, you're conflating realism with "a plot that isn't a bloated piece of shit." Like, Streets of Fire has barely any realism in it, and it fucking rules, for example.

[Mellsblue]

Exactly. So why the earlier pontificating about the weak plot and sub-plots in Spectre. It’s an action movie based on a fictional character who has jumped cars over rivers whilst completing a barrel roll, flown up to space to fight a giant man with metal teeth and battled baddies in their volcano lairs. Feck me. Worrying about whether someone is related to Bond is fairly low down the list of worries if you want some realism.

Realism is not the point. Regardless of how far-fetched Bond as a franchise is, adding that extra wrinkle to that relationship was completely unnecessary and pointless. Based on what you've written, you're conflating realism with "a plot that isn't a bloated piece of shit." Like, Streets of Fire has barely any realism in it, and it fucking rules, for example.

I’m not conflating anything. People watch Bond for fights, cars and unrealistic stunts, gadgets and situations. Anyone worried about sub-plots is either missing the point of the films or are trying to find something that doesn’t really matter.

[cashead]

Exactly. So why the earlier pontificating about the weak plot and sub-plots in Spectre. It’s an action movie based on a fictional character who has jumped cars over rivers whilst completing a barrel roll, flown up to space to fight a giant man with metal teeth and battled baddies in their volcano lairs. Feck me. Worrying about whether someone is related to Bond is fairly low down the list of worries if you want some realism.

Realism is not the point. Regardless of how far-fetched Bond as a franchise is, adding that extra wrinkle to that relationship was completely unnecessary and pointless. Based on what you've written, you're conflating realism with "a plot that isn't a bloated piece of shit." Like, Streets of Fire has barely any realism in it, and it fucking rules, for example.

I’m not conflating anything. People watch Bond for fights, cars and unrealistic stunts, gadgets and situations. Anyone worried about sub-plots is either missing the point of the films or are trying to find something that doesn’t really matter.

Bond and Blofeld being step-brothers wasn't a subplot, dude. Aside from that, the implication that a film with "fights, cars, stunts, gadgets and situations," shouldn't even aspire to have a decent plot is just plain bullshit. You may not have noticed this, but the films have moved on considerably from the Roger Moore years.

Further, considering that the high water mark of the Craig years so far, Skyfall (81/100 on Metacritic and US$1.108billion world-wide in box office - that's roughly double what Casino Royale did, by the way) had a plot that had a hell of a lot more going for it than just "fights, cars and unrealistic stunts, gadgets and situations," I'd say it's fairly likely that you speak for a far smaller portion of the audience than you might think.

[Mellsblue]

Realism is not the point. Regardless of how far-fetched Bond as a franchise is, adding that extra wrinkle to that relationship was completely unnecessary and pointless. Based on what you've written, you're conflating realism with "a plot that isn't a bloated piece of shit." Like, Streets of Fire has barely any realism in it, and it fucking rules, for example.

I’m not conflating anything. People watch Bond for fights, cars and unrealistic stunts, gadgets and situations. Anyone worried about sub-plots is either missing the point of the films or are trying to find something that doesn’t really matter.

Bond and Blofeld being step-brothers wasn't a subplot, dude. Aside from that, the implication that a film with "fights, cars, stunts, gadgets and situations," shouldn't even aspire to have a decent plot is just plain bullshit. You may not have noticed this, but the films have moved on considerably from the Roger Moore years.

Further, considering that the high water mark of the Craig years so far, Skyfall (81/100 on Metacritic and US$1.108billion world-wide in box office - that's roughly double what Casino Royale did, by the way) had a plot that had a hell of a lot more going for it than just "fights, cars and unrealistic stunts, gadgets and situations," I'd say it's fairly likely that you speak for a far smaller portion of the audience than you might think.

Fair enough. To be honest, I don’t really care. I always find arguing over fiction a bit pointless.

[Digby]

And yet Skyfall had Bond's quartermaster, a supposed computing genius, plug an unknown computer into the in house system, talk about a lack of realism!