Escape to the Movies: Special: Bond Girls
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Of course moonraker sucks. That was the point of the statement. And dont send me a review to prove your point, yahtzee is often just as wrong as anyone else.Terrorist_school_drop-out said:
Now chill. James Blonde sucks. And most of the reason for that is Quantum. Casino Royale wasn't very good, but it had potential. Then they made quantum and any hope i had for the new bond series was obliterated. at the VERY least they could have had villains MORE evil than the people they were based on.
Allright then, sorry for the mistake but you should have made your point more clearly, it was easy to missunderstand, and yes Yahtzee is a bit abused as a "Dictionary of Complete Rightness" and I wasn't triyng to prove a point with that it was just a "hey, speaking of wich" thing.8-Bit_Jack said:
But back on the subject, I don't want to repet myself but your opinion is the perfect example of my previously made statement about the "love or hate" state that the new James Bond has.
Now lets end this because I feel we went a bit over-quoty.
Fairly decent analysis of the bond girl phenomenon. A little too dismissive of the new Bond movies in my opinion, but I won't try to pretend that my opinion is the only one that matters. *glares at 8-bit_Jack* Quantom of Solace was a bland attempt to build on Casino Royale, but Casino Royale was an excellent movie. It had an intelligent plot, a hint of the smooth sophistication that some of the previous Bonds had done better, and yes, some damn good action. So yeah, that's my two cents. Take them how you will.
some very valid points. sometimes moviebob seems a little stupid or immature but then he comes out with something as insightful as this. while i dont agree with everything he says I think he has one of the most valid opinions of the reviewers I look to.
I'd take his opinion over the snobbish and pretentious rolling stone anyday.
keep it up moviebob!
I'd take his opinion over the snobbish and pretentious rolling stone anyday.
keep it up moviebob!
But that is called thread derailment, which makes us engineers on trains. DRUNK engineers. Because we derailed the train.Terrorist_school_drop-out said:
Waitaminute... that'd be trollbooze. Which mean if someone had trollcake, we could have a party! a big internet party on our derailed train full of dead people and leaking various chemicals... So I guess the party would be at 4chan.
I love my braaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiin *watches Goldeneye and Man with the Golden Gun*
I have decided the two most ri-god-damn-diculous bond films are Moonraker (number one, for sooooooooo many oobvious reasons. Jaws cannot save you, Space-Bond) and "you only live twice". The latter has one of the best theme songs ever, (another thing the Blonde films lack) but come on. Ninja Bond! God damn you sir. You made Bond one of those white people I hate. At least he has the good sense to say "Fuck all this wacky Japanese crap, I'm gonna shoot a *****" towards the end
Hey. Hey. Don't you glare at me. I'll cut you. Cut you a slice of the cake at the party.thimblyjoe said:
I would like to point out, Casino Royale is, while not as good as many here seem to think, better than I remembered it being. Its mutant offspring (Quantum of Solace) so offended my film nerd, bond nerd, and just about every other nerd sense I possess, it coloured my recollection of its progenitor.
Thank you, you have just pointed out what I couldn't put my finger on about the new Bond movies. There are no more grandiose plots of World Domination anymore. Bond keeping African warlords from getting good returns on their investments and commiting bank fraud is boring.WanderFreak said:
I agree. It's time for poor James to be laid to rest. Without supervillians with fantastic world domination plots it just lacks the original charm.
FEMINISM NOTE:
After Tomorrow Never Dies came out, one of my lady friends said she didn't like it because the "bond girl" lacked the sexual liberation that MovieBob was talking about. She was just a silent ass-kicker with little personality.
Interesting, I missed this when it was new.
Truthfully I think it also represents a switch in a philsophy of Hollywood that they were going to do what they wanted and make a fortune doing it, to one where they were simply going to make a fortune doing whatever made money.
You saw this during the 1980s with the beginning rise of the corperations, which at that time were fairly new and scary, and had yet to become a stock feature in storytelling (one way or another). I sort of consider the last hurrah for Hollywood as being the whole "Video Nasties" list which got started in the UK, went international (to an extent) and then was fought successfully. That was about both violence AND Sexuality. Come the 1990s you stopped seeing Hollywood defending itself quite as much and going more with the flow of what the goverment (if not society wanted) simply because it was felt they could make more money that way.
To an extent you see this now with video games, where the industry as a whole does not do much to fight against goverment attempts to censor and control them. In part I feel (even if many do not agree) it's because it would involve trying to re-educate a lot of the gaming community of the real stance of left wing politicians (if not left wingers themselves) when it comes to censorship itself, but also because nobody wants to lead the charge and spend all that money while taking the potential risks. I find it ironic that I expected companies like Valve to step up to the plate, and suggested groups like Anonymous as an "aside" (given the level they had operated at), yet right now we've got the big, fairly "Fan friendly" companies who appear to take their work seriously still hiding under their beds, while Anonymous pretty much has gone toe to toe with the Australian goverment. Ironically if the industry was actually working to coordinate an "offensive" at the same time, I think we could see Australia's censorship attempts go down in flames, and start to cause a domino effect throughout a world trying the same thing.
Right now I find it ironic that here on The Escapist you have movie makers wondering why they are selling less tickets to the traditional "big movie" audience of young males, and blaming things like video games. In reality I think it's simply a matter that they have gotten too cautious about offending anyone, that the thrills that audience thrives on from sex and violence aren't there. Nobody is shocked or excited anymore, and villains have become predictable two dimensional cardboard cutouts chosen from a list for fear of offending someone. When you have the Russians actually getting press exposure out of being offended at being the bad guys in the last Indiana Jones movie, it's a problem, especially seeing as Hollywood tends to take this kind of thing seriously when they shouldn't.
Yes, James Bond has gotten bland, but then again Hollywood doesn't have the guts to have him do the things that the older incarnations of the character would have. Fighting say the Russian Mob is okay, but you can't have James Bond go toe to toe with the KGB. When it comes to the "Bond Girls" again they take the press too seriously, and simply don't have the guts to do what they had been doing to begin with. Society hasn't changed that much, but Hollywood has basically castrated itself.
Ironically I consider the success of the "Saw" movies to largely rely around the fact that while increasingly banal storywise, they are not afraid to try and shock the audience, and for the most part have not pulled punches. Consider that these movies pushed futher than the so called "Geek King Of Excess" (Quentin Tatantino) when he tried to do shock horror.
Now, if Hollywood stopped pulling it's punches, fought the censors, and actually put genuine thrills into movies again (considering also a jaded audience) I think they would sell more tickets to the audience they feel is missing.
Truthfully I think it also represents a switch in a philsophy of Hollywood that they were going to do what they wanted and make a fortune doing it, to one where they were simply going to make a fortune doing whatever made money.
You saw this during the 1980s with the beginning rise of the corperations, which at that time were fairly new and scary, and had yet to become a stock feature in storytelling (one way or another). I sort of consider the last hurrah for Hollywood as being the whole "Video Nasties" list which got started in the UK, went international (to an extent) and then was fought successfully. That was about both violence AND Sexuality. Come the 1990s you stopped seeing Hollywood defending itself quite as much and going more with the flow of what the goverment (if not society wanted) simply because it was felt they could make more money that way.
To an extent you see this now with video games, where the industry as a whole does not do much to fight against goverment attempts to censor and control them. In part I feel (even if many do not agree) it's because it would involve trying to re-educate a lot of the gaming community of the real stance of left wing politicians (if not left wingers themselves) when it comes to censorship itself, but also because nobody wants to lead the charge and spend all that money while taking the potential risks. I find it ironic that I expected companies like Valve to step up to the plate, and suggested groups like Anonymous as an "aside" (given the level they had operated at), yet right now we've got the big, fairly "Fan friendly" companies who appear to take their work seriously still hiding under their beds, while Anonymous pretty much has gone toe to toe with the Australian goverment. Ironically if the industry was actually working to coordinate an "offensive" at the same time, I think we could see Australia's censorship attempts go down in flames, and start to cause a domino effect throughout a world trying the same thing.
Right now I find it ironic that here on The Escapist you have movie makers wondering why they are selling less tickets to the traditional "big movie" audience of young males, and blaming things like video games. In reality I think it's simply a matter that they have gotten too cautious about offending anyone, that the thrills that audience thrives on from sex and violence aren't there. Nobody is shocked or excited anymore, and villains have become predictable two dimensional cardboard cutouts chosen from a list for fear of offending someone. When you have the Russians actually getting press exposure out of being offended at being the bad guys in the last Indiana Jones movie, it's a problem, especially seeing as Hollywood tends to take this kind of thing seriously when they shouldn't.
Yes, James Bond has gotten bland, but then again Hollywood doesn't have the guts to have him do the things that the older incarnations of the character would have. Fighting say the Russian Mob is okay, but you can't have James Bond go toe to toe with the KGB. When it comes to the "Bond Girls" again they take the press too seriously, and simply don't have the guts to do what they had been doing to begin with. Society hasn't changed that much, but Hollywood has basically castrated itself.
Ironically I consider the success of the "Saw" movies to largely rely around the fact that while increasingly banal storywise, they are not afraid to try and shock the audience, and for the most part have not pulled punches. Consider that these movies pushed futher than the so called "Geek King Of Excess" (Quentin Tatantino) when he tried to do shock horror.
Now, if Hollywood stopped pulling it's punches, fought the censors, and actually put genuine thrills into movies again (considering also a jaded audience) I think they would sell more tickets to the audience they feel is missing.
The man has a point // Where are the wonders that where Connery's Bond just walkin in on a girl and within second he could have her naked and in bed
Plus those women were not, and I mean smokin hot! // Yes the ones we get nowadays are fun to look at but back then they were iconic!
-M
Plus those women were not, and I mean smokin hot! // Yes the ones we get nowadays are fun to look at but back then they were iconic!
-M
I'll give my take on why I like the new Bond best. Growing up my brother watched the old Bond movies so I got a look at them occasionally and typically just found them to be eye rollingly silly and goofy. Now as an adult woman I find the females in those movies to be offensive... and it has nothing to do with the sex! I don't care that they sleep with Bond at the drop of the hat (don't know why since none of the Bonds till Daniel Craig are attractive). My issue with them is their useless. Almost all of them could be removed from the movie and nothing would change. The plot would often remain completely intact and the women themselves were less about personality and more about a great set of tits!
What I like about the new Bond is how he reacted in QoS to the death of the one gal. That scene was done so amazingly. And the other woman in the movie wasn't this worthless sex symbol she had a real story and personality.
On top of it all Daniel Craig actually gets me hot and bothered, so its believable that women would flock to him. The rest are either completely unattractive or uninteresting looking. Blech.
What I like about the new Bond is how he reacted in QoS to the death of the one gal. That scene was done so amazingly. And the other woman in the movie wasn't this worthless sex symbol she had a real story and personality.
On top of it all Daniel Craig actually gets me hot and bothered, so its believable that women would flock to him. The rest are either completely unattractive or uninteresting looking. Blech.
Lies!
Brosnan was a superior Bond to Moore.
Moore had better villains, though, perennial henchman Jaws chief among them. Brosnan's foes essentially were, in order, himself, Rupert Murdoch, a dead man walking, and Stereotype of Western Excess. Seriously, the car chase with Zao was the only really memorable moment after Goldeneye.
I must disagree with those who say Halle Berry was the worst Bond girl. They forget Denise Richards. Seriously? SHE is a nuclear scientist? Pull the other leg.
And then they're in that oil pipe trying to disarm the bomb, and Bond's all like "the screwheads have been stripped" and she's all like, "someone's tampered with the bomb!"
.... REALLY?!? SOMEONE TAMPERED WITH THE BOMB?!? WELL THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TELLING ME THAT IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION! AND HERE I WAS READY TO GO ON BELIEVING THAT SCREWHEADS JUST STRIPPED THEMSELVES! I GUESS THIS REALLY *DOES* TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST!
/rant over. God, she just pissed me off so bad.
But am I the only one who wishes they would have just locked in Martin Campbell to direct every Bond movie from now until he dies? The only two genuinely good ones in the last 25 years were the two he directed. My life would be complete if only:
- Campbell would direct Bond forever
- Christopher Nolan would direct Batman forever (not to be confused with Batman Forever)
- J.J. Abrams would direct Star Trek forever
Brosnan was a superior Bond to Moore.
Moore had better villains, though, perennial henchman Jaws chief among them. Brosnan's foes essentially were, in order, himself, Rupert Murdoch, a dead man walking, and Stereotype of Western Excess. Seriously, the car chase with Zao was the only really memorable moment after Goldeneye.
I must disagree with those who say Halle Berry was the worst Bond girl. They forget Denise Richards. Seriously? SHE is a nuclear scientist? Pull the other leg.
And then they're in that oil pipe trying to disarm the bomb, and Bond's all like "the screwheads have been stripped" and she's all like, "someone's tampered with the bomb!"
.... REALLY?!? SOMEONE TAMPERED WITH THE BOMB?!? WELL THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TELLING ME THAT IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION! AND HERE I WAS READY TO GO ON BELIEVING THAT SCREWHEADS JUST STRIPPED THEMSELVES! I GUESS THIS REALLY *DOES* TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST!
/rant over. God, she just pissed me off so bad.
But am I the only one who wishes they would have just locked in Martin Campbell to direct every Bond movie from now until he dies? The only two genuinely good ones in the last 25 years were the two he directed. My life would be complete if only:
- Campbell would direct Bond forever
- Christopher Nolan would direct Batman forever (not to be confused with Batman Forever)
- J.J. Abrams would direct Star Trek forever
James Bond was something special when it started. Its getting old now and all the Bond's should retire. Its time for something new.
I agree with this whole post. People who glorify terms like "Bond girl" and then wonder why feminists might take offense are really missing the point.aLibrarianOfSorts said:
I do enjoy Movie Bob though, but this installment was definitely off.