Last Bond Movie You Watched.

"The signal example is Bond flying the remote control BMW over the edge of the parking garage and into the rental shop in TND. If we eliminated reckless stupidity from Bond films we would eliminate 1/3 of all the footage!"

And if Craig had have done that M would have bitched at him for the next 20 minutes of the movie. So maybe it wasn't so much that Craig Bond was reckless but M had just gotten older and grumpier by this point and was henpecking him.

The moment that sells the entire TND garage chase: Not the honking of the flying car, not just the crashing into an Avis rental kiosk...
But Brozzer's absolutely gorgeous gleeful salute to the dying car as he sees it go off into doom and knowing Q's broken heart shall find it.
THAT'S what makes it work and helps the audience get over Paris's demise. Then it is topped off by his standing up looking around as if he were a bemused schoolboy getting away with something wicked.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

And that's why some say CR is the Bond film for people who don't like Bond.

Funny, the only people that seem to express that are those who aren't really fond of CR, and yet all I've seen is a insurgence of new fans because of that film, much like how GE made new fans of Bond back in its day.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I think when Khan speaks of seriousness in Bond films he's speaking in relative terms for Bond rather than film in general. I remember in 2004 when I would describe FRWL to someone I would strongly emphasize that it's a more serious and grounded Bond film, mainly because we were still fresh off of DAD with its space laserbeams, invisible cars, and CGI parasailing. I'm pretty sure in 1980 any Bond fan would have made similar a emphasis of such comments in light of MR's release.

That's fine. And that's why I think the term 'focused' is much more accurate than serious.

There's an element of Benign Bizarre in Bond. Some take it too far (YOLT, DAD, for example), but several strike a good balance of it. Even in FRWL and TLD. They embrace it as part of Bond's DNA and it stills pivots seamlessly to the main story. When they forget about it, or are too ashamed to embrace it (especially in the case of SP), the films lose that quality that make them Bond films. And that's why some say CR is the Bond film for people who don't like Bond.

Hilly wrote:

Dundee is quite the legend. To the point they had the internet in a flap last year when the Australian tourist board did an advert that was covered up as a fresh 'reboot' of Dundee. Clever of them.

They actually are doing another Dundee film. Or a spinoff of some kind. Called The Very Excellent Mr Dundee. Has quite a cast, with Chevy Chase, Olivia Newton John, John Cleese, Wayne Knight and Paul Hogan all playing themselves according to the cast list.

I think SP actually has quite a bit of Benign Bizarre. For instance, the Dies de los Muertos theme in the PTS, the SPECTRE meeting and Brofeld's lair in North Africa. CR has less. I'm sure there's some--somebody help me out here!--but I'm struggling to recall it this instant.

Yes, and that's why SP in part feels more like a traditional Bond film. I'd add Hinx's thumbnails too. But for every bizarre element in SP there's something that pulls the film back into the generic actioner CR and QOS aim for: the Day of the Dead parade becomes the backdrop for more reckless stupidity from Bond, the SPECTRE meeting I'll concede to, even though Bond's access to the room is too easy and sows the seeds for that awful Cuckoo dynamic. Brofeld's lair is very good, though it's not used enough at all, because we can't have lairs in the Craig era. These filums are too serious. A film that embraces the sub genre that James Bond is would have made use of that Moroccan base for the final act.

Now, now, KKBB. Reckless stupidity? Really? That's probably more common in Bond films than the Benign Bizarre. The signal example is Bond flying the remote control BMW over the edge of the parking garage and into the rental shop in TND. If we eliminated reckless stupidity from Bond films we would eliminate 1/3 of all the footage!

I do agree that the North African lair should have been used more extensively and that the finale should have occurred there rather than in London. That said, I think that was simply a mistake on the part of the creators rather than some stricture against lairs in DC films.

That moment in TND isn't ideal, but part of my justification is that Bond thought the wall was as solid as the parking lot garage door, which could withstand two missiles. Secondly the horn sounds so surely that counts towards him letting bystanders know to move. Thirdly, it buys Bond time. Fourthly, TND has a lighter tone. Besides, that entire scene is so creative.

In SP, Bond is supposed to protect Madeleine. So after the most generic action sequence in any Bond film (save for maybe that Miami airport sequence in CR), he decides that ramming a plane up the car that holds the person he's to protect in the back seat is the best way to move forward. No wonder she cracks it when she gets out of the car. The chopper hovering over a crowd of thousands of people in Mexico is by far worse in terms of reckless stupidity than that TND moment. What was he thinking? Also doesn't help that half of the close up shots look like dodgy CGI work.

BI wrote:

Not sure that fella whose eyes Hinx drove his thumbnails into would call them 'benign'  

Touché!

Bond pulled the remote car stunt because he was behaving like a little boy with a brand new toy, and it was obvious. His gleeful facial expressions and removing his hands from the remote control as the car goes sailing over helpless pedestrians below show what a jolly good time he was having. And I daresay the likelihood of killing at least some innocent bystanders with the BMW was considerably greater than with the helicopter in SP, although the potential number of fatalities was greater in the latter. But if that's not enough for you, how about the Eiffel Tower car chase in AVTAK? Reckless stupidity in spades. Hell, I think I'm going to start a thread on the subject of "reckless stupidity." There's enough grist there for a triple-digit thread.

Sarai wrote:

"The signal example is Bond flying the remote control BMW over the edge of the parking garage and into the rental shop in TND. If we eliminated reckless stupidity from Bond films we would eliminate 1/3 of all the footage!"

And if Craig had have done that M would have bitched at him for the next 20 minutes of the movie. So maybe it wasn't so much that Craig Bond was reckless but M had just gotten older and grumpier by this point and was henpecking him.

"I need to know I can trust you, 007. Trust you to take your ego out of the equation, judge the situation dispassionately, and not act like an 8-year-old dork by flying your remote control BMW off of a parking garage and into a crowd of bystanders. God only knows we get enough of that nonsense with the bloody towel-heads. Christ, I miss the Cold War!"

hegottheboot wrote:

The moment that sells the entire TND garage chase: Not the honking of the flying car, not just the crashing into an Avis rental kiosk...
But Brozzer's absolutely gorgeous gleeful salute to the dying car as he sees it go off into doom and knowing Q's broken heart shall find it.
THAT'S what makes it work and helps the audience get over Paris's demise. Then it is topped off by his standing up looking around as if he were a bemused schoolboy getting away with something wicked.

Frankly, I was pleased to see Paris get her chips, although I'll admit it was a terrible waste of a lovely bum...

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Sarai wrote:

"The signal example is Bond flying the remote control BMW over the edge of the parking garage and into the rental shop in TND. If we eliminated reckless stupidity from Bond films we would eliminate 1/3 of all the footage!"

And if Craig had have done that M would have bitched at him for the next 20 minutes of the movie. So maybe it wasn't so much that Craig Bond was reckless but M had just gotten older and grumpier by this point and was henpecking him.

"I need to know I can trust you, 007. Trust you to take your ego out of the equation, judge the situation dispassionately, and not act like an 8-year-old dork by flying your remote control BMW off of a parking garage and into a crowd of bystanders. God only knows we get enough of that nonsense with the bloody towel-heads. Christ, I miss the Cold War!"

I too was pleased to see Paris go simply because it felt forced to have her as THE old flame complete with the slap in the face bit etc.-but over time I think it's decently performed if a bit underwritten of a part. The staging and Brozzer's reaction to her death is fantastic as is the callback (if a bit forced) to DN of the waiting for the agent of death with vodka and Walther. And of course it's her.

But it gives us Dr. Kaufman which makes everything better and then ZE FILUM THROWS HIIM AVAY! AUGH VAT DO VE HAV TO DO TO GET A DECENT ROLE STAMPAH?!?!?!?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I think when Khan speaks of seriousness in Bond films he's speaking in relative terms for Bond rather than film in general. I remember in 2004 when I would describe FRWL to someone I would strongly emphasize that it's a more serious and grounded Bond film, mainly because we were still fresh off of DAD with its space laserbeams, invisible cars, and CGI parasailing. I'm pretty sure in 1980 any Bond fan would have made similar a emphasis of such comments in light of MR's release.

That's fine. And that's why I think the term 'focused' is much more accurate than serious.

There's an element of Benign Bizarre in Bond. Some take it too far (YOLT, DAD, for example), but several strike a good balance of it. Even in FRWL and TLD. They embrace it as part of Bond's DNA and it stills pivots seamlessly to the main story. When they forget about it, or are too ashamed to embrace it (especially in the case of SP), the films lose that quality that make them Bond films. And that's why some say CR is the Bond film for people who don't like Bond.

Hilly wrote:

Dundee is quite the legend. To the point they had the internet in a flap last year when the Australian tourist board did an advert that was covered up as a fresh 'reboot' of Dundee. Clever of them.

They actually are doing another Dundee film. Or a spinoff of some kind. Called The Very Excellent Mr Dundee. Has quite a cast, with Chevy Chase, Olivia Newton John, John Cleese, Wayne Knight and Paul Hogan all playing themselves according to the cast list.

I think SP actually has quite a bit of Benign Bizarre. For instance, the Dies de los Muertos theme in the PTS, the SPECTRE meeting and Brofeld's lair in North Africa. CR has less. I'm sure there's some--somebody help me out here!--but I'm struggling to recall it this instant.

Yes, and that's why SP in part feels more like a traditional Bond film. I'd add Hinx's thumbnails too. But for every bizarre element in SP there's something that pulls the film back into the generic actioner CR and QOS aim for: the Day of the Dead parade becomes the backdrop for more reckless stupidity from Bond, the SPECTRE meeting I'll concede to, even though Bond's access to the room is too easy and sows the seeds for that awful Cuckoo dynamic. Brofeld's lair is very good, though it's not used enough at all, because we can't have lairs in the Craig era. These filums are too serious. A film that embraces the sub genre that James Bond is would have made use of that Moroccan base for the final act.

Now, now, KKBB. Reckless stupidity? Really? That's probably more common in Bond films than the Benign Bizarre. The signal example is Bond flying the remote control BMW over the edge of the parking garage and into the rental shop in TND. If we eliminated reckless stupidity from Bond films we would eliminate 1/3 of all the footage!

I do agree that the North African lair should have been used more extensively and that the finale should have occurred there rather than in London. That said, I think that was simply a mistake on the part of the creators rather than some stricture against lairs in DC films.

That moment in TND isn't ideal, but part of my justification is that Bond thought the wall was as solid as the parking lot garage door, which could withstand two missiles. Secondly the horn sounds so surely that counts towards him letting bystanders know to move. Thirdly, it buys Bond time. Fourthly, TND has a lighter tone. Besides, that entire scene is so creative.

In SP, Bond is supposed to protect Madeleine. So after the most generic action sequence in any Bond film (save for maybe that Miami airport sequence in CR), he decides that ramming a plane up the car that holds the person he's to protect in the back seat is the best way to move forward. No wonder she cracks it when she gets out of the car. The chopper hovering over a crowd of thousands of people in Mexico is by far worse in terms of reckless stupidity than that TND moment. What was he thinking? Also doesn't help that half of the close up shots look like dodgy CGI work.

BI wrote:

Not sure that fella whose eyes Hinx drove his thumbnails into would call them 'benign'  

Touché!

Bond pulled the remote car stunt because he was behaving like a little boy with a brand new toy, and it was obvious. His gleeful facial expressions and removing his hands from the remote control as the car goes sailing over helpless pedestrians below show what a jolly good time he was having. And I daresay the likelihood of killing at least some innocent bystanders with the BMW was considerably greater than with the helicopter in SP, although the potential number of fatalities was greater in the latter. But if that's not enough for you, how about the Eiffel Tower car chase in AVTAK? Reckless stupidity in spades. Hell, I think I'm going to start a thread on the subject of "reckless stupidity." There's enough grist there for a triple-digit thread.

I don't buy he's having a "jolly good time" when the car flies off the edge. Brosnan sells an understated 'noooo' very well with the cool efficiency. Also highly doubtful he'd have killed as many bystanders with the BMW than with the chopper. This shouldn't even be a discussion point.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

I think when Khan speaks of seriousness in Bond films he's speaking in relative terms for Bond rather than film in general. I remember in 2004 when I would describe FRWL to someone I would strongly emphasize that it's a more serious and grounded Bond film, mainly because we were still fresh off of DAD with its space laserbeams, invisible cars, and CGI parasailing. I'm pretty sure in 1980 any Bond fan would have made similar a emphasis of such comments in light of MR's release.

That's fine. And that's why I think the term 'focused' is much more accurate than serious.

There's an element of Benign Bizarre in Bond. Some take it too far (YOLT, DAD, for example), but several strike a good balance of it. Even in FRWL and TLD. They embrace it as part of Bond's DNA and it stills pivots seamlessly to the main story. When they forget about it, or are too ashamed to embrace it (especially in the case of SP), the films lose that quality that make them Bond films. And that's why some say CR is the Bond film for people who don't like Bond.

Hilly wrote:

Dundee is quite the legend. To the point they had the internet in a flap last year when the Australian tourist board did an advert that was covered up as a fresh 'reboot' of Dundee. Clever of them.

They actually are doing another Dundee film. Or a spinoff of some kind. Called The Very Excellent Mr Dundee. Has quite a cast, with Chevy Chase, Olivia Newton John, John Cleese, Wayne Knight and Paul Hogan all playing themselves according to the cast list.

I think SP actually has quite a bit of Benign Bizarre. For instance, the Dies de los Muertos theme in the PTS, the SPECTRE meeting and Brofeld's lair in North Africa. CR has less. I'm sure there's some--somebody help me out here!--but I'm struggling to recall it this instant.

Yes, and that's why SP in part feels more like a traditional Bond film. I'd add Hinx's thumbnails too. But for every bizarre element in SP there's something that pulls the film back into the generic actioner CR and QOS aim for: the Day of the Dead parade becomes the backdrop for more reckless stupidity from Bond, the SPECTRE meeting I'll concede to, even though Bond's access to the room is too easy and sows the seeds for that awful Cuckoo dynamic. Brofeld's lair is very good, though it's not used enough at all, because we can't have lairs in the Craig era. These filums are too serious. A film that embraces the sub genre that James Bond is would have made use of that Moroccan base for the final act.

Now, now, KKBB. Reckless stupidity? Really? That's probably more common in Bond films than the Benign Bizarre. The signal example is Bond flying the remote control BMW over the edge of the parking garage and into the rental shop in TND. If we eliminated reckless stupidity from Bond films we would eliminate 1/3 of all the footage!

I do agree that the North African lair should have been used more extensively and that the finale should have occurred there rather than in London. That said, I think that was simply a mistake on the part of the creators rather than some stricture against lairs in DC films.

That moment in TND isn't ideal, but part of my justification is that Bond thought the wall was as solid as the parking lot garage door, which could withstand two missiles. Secondly the horn sounds so surely that counts towards him letting bystanders know to move. Thirdly, it buys Bond time. Fourthly, TND has a lighter tone. Besides, that entire scene is so creative.

In SP, Bond is supposed to protect Madeleine. So after the most generic action sequence in any Bond film (save for maybe that Miami airport sequence in CR), he decides that ramming a plane up the car that holds the person he's to protect in the back seat is the best way to move forward. No wonder she cracks it when she gets out of the car. The chopper hovering over a crowd of thousands of people in Mexico is by far worse in terms of reckless stupidity than that TND moment. What was he thinking? Also doesn't help that half of the close up shots look like dodgy CGI work.

BI wrote:

Not sure that fella whose eyes Hinx drove his thumbnails into would call them 'benign'  

Touché!

Bond pulled the remote car stunt because he was behaving like a little boy with a brand new toy, and it was obvious. His gleeful facial expressions and removing his hands from the remote control as the car goes sailing over helpless pedestrians below show what a jolly good time he was having. And I daresay the likelihood of killing at least some innocent bystanders with the BMW was considerably greater than with the helicopter in SP, although the potential number of fatalities was greater in the latter. But if that's not enough for you, how about the Eiffel Tower car chase in AVTAK? Reckless stupidity in spades. Hell, I think I'm going to start a thread on the subject of "reckless stupidity." There's enough grist there for a triple-digit thread.

I don't buy he's having a "jolly good time" when the car flies off the edge. Brosnan sells an understated 'noooo' very well with the cool efficiency. Also highly doubtful he'd have killed as many bystanders with the BMW than with the chopper. This shouldn't even be a discussion point.

Bloody hell man! Have you actually watched the sequence? Did it escape your attention that he beamed a massive smile after the Beemer crashed below?

Just to refresh your memory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKAME9fAA-4

And, if you'll take the time to read with slightly more care, you will see that not only did I not claim the BMW would kill as many people as the chopper, I noted the opposite. What I did say was that the LIKELIHOOD of fatalities was greater when intentionally sending a car off of a parking garage into a crowd of people than was wrestling for control of a helicopter over a crowd of people.

In Fields' eyes, the Brosnans can do virtually no wrong and the Craigs can do virtually no right. And there's no convincing him otherwise.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

In Fields' eyes, the Brosnans can do virtually no wrong and the Craigs can do virtually no right. And there's no convincing him otherwise.

Yeah, I'm not wasting any more of my time on this sort of nonsense. Is KKBB actually Fieldsman? If so, I didn't realize it.

Yes indeed.

Yeah PK, that clip pretty much confirmed what I thought. Doesn't like the fact it crashed through the wall and into a building, but since it looks like no one was hurt, he enjoys that the distraction he's created and the irony of the "safe journey".

Blunt Instrument wrote:

In Fields' eyes, the Brosnans can do virtually no wrong and the Craigs can do virtually no right. And there's no convincing him otherwise.

Ahh... to reduce my opinion to something so black and white only serves to dismiss that I might be actually right about certain things.

"Yeah PK, that clip pretty much confirmed what I thought. Doesn't like the fact it crashed through the wall and into a building, but since it looks like no one was hurt, he enjoys that the distraction he's created and the irony of the "safe journey".

and he did all that without wearing a dress

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

In Fields' eyes, the Brosnans can do virtually no wrong and the Craigs can do virtually no right. And there's no convincing him otherwise.

Ahh... to reduce my opinion to something so black and white only serves to dismiss that I might be actually right about certain things.

Because of your strong affinity for Brosnan it does come off that you go much easier on him and his films critically than other Bonds, especially the guy who replaced him.

The recklessness of Bond is really something that seems to have kicked off with Mike and Babs' run starting with the tank chase in GE. Since then there always seemed to be moments of Bond doing a crazy stunt that would have put innocent bystanders in danger. But of course, because it's a Bond film, he ends up lucking out in causing zero casualties because he's the guy that always gets nines at baccarat. Would be tonally inappropriate to suddenly reveal that some bloke got smashed by a car outside a rental agency. Zack Snyder already did that with his DC films, we certainly don't need that contaminating Bond.

I remember someone got upset over QOS because they assumed Bond shot an innocent bystander during the foot chase and that really upset them the most. Of course it was actually Mitchell that fired the shot, but it would be understandable that someone would get confused with all the shaky cam and rapid fire editing going on.

Brosnan himself is only one aspect of his era. I'm more interested in tone, and that's why I'm "easier" on his era than the current one.

I'm no more loving of Brosnan's era than Connery and Lazenby's, Moore's and Dalton. The 60s easily rivals the 90s for my favourite era of Bond.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Brosnan himself is only one aspect of his era. I'm more interested in tone, and that's why I'm "easier" on his era than the current one.

I'm no more loving of Brosnan's era than Connery and Lazenby's, Moore's and Dalton. The 60s easily rivals the 90s for my favourite era of Bond.

It doesn't matter you won the debate when Khan wussed out, again. And he think's he is going to lead the revolution? The gender feminists are going to eat him alive.

Somehow I don't think Khan is a revolutionary.

but we love him

I haven't seen him around in awhile so I thought I would try to draw him out.

I wouldn't say Khan "wussed out", rather he realized he was wasting his time trying to argue with KKBB's strong bias regarding the films featuring Brosnan and Craig.

I wasn't being series at all and just missed seeing him around :)

I'm still alive.

And KKBB is correct--I'm a counterrevolutionary rather than a revolutionary.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I'm still alive.

And KKBB is correct--I'm a counterrevolutionary rather than a revolutionary.

You are back!   I was worried the blue meanies might have got you. 

Sarai wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I'm still alive.

And KKBB is correct--I'm a counterrevolutionary rather than a revolutionary.

You are back!     I was worried the blue meanies might have got you. 

I never left...