i recently watched all of the bond movies (except the craig ones) because i had either never seen them before or it was too long ago. i have now started the mission impossible movies. i have to wonder, what the fuck is the point of bond movies anymore?most of the old bond films are just... not that good. i can excuse a lot of flaws and "just have fun with it", but at least half of moore's are just plain BAD. growing up, my impression of bond was from brosnan, when they were a bit more actiony and visually impressive. i can excuse the 60s and 70s limitations, but they still just feel like bad pulp comics. kitschy, campy, and dull. im sure that at the time they were incredibly impressive, but i feel like they just dont hold up anymore. i know that they served as a massive advertisement for travel and "lifestyle" but it feels like it just falls short in every major area. they dont really function as a comedy. they dont really have good execution or spectacle for action. the plots and acting are a bit too campy to really take seriously. its like its trying to do too many things and failing all of them. i mean, just in general. they arent all COMPLETELY bad, but they dont really start to get good until a view to a kill. austin powers does everything bond films do but better, with exception of trading class for crass and cringe. (cont)
>>219408602(cont)when it comes to spy stuff, mission impossible just blows it out of the water. genuinely impressive gadgets, stunts, and choreography. loads more intrigue, subterfuge, and passion. i dont feel like i wasted my time afterwards. people like to shit on the craig movies for "not being bond", but its clear that they're trying to be more like mission impossible. is that really a bad thing? the old bond films can certainly stand as icons of history, but i feel like starting with dalton, they became more worth watching. older bond movies just feel... hollow. like if the "point" is kitschy camp, why not watch an actual comedy? if its for a "lighter tone" and "classy banter", why not ocean's or something? if its for spy stuff, why not mission impossible? its certainly not for the action or intrigue. like fuck, even marvel movies do most of what a bond movie does, but better. are people just holding on to a relic of the past? are they just propping up a bandwagon that has long since died, in a weekend at bernie's style charade? "no no, bond is great, see?"
>>219408602>>219408627Bond movies are about big over the top fun characters. MI is about Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise doing Tom Cruise stunts. For spy shit the TV show was much better.
>>219408685oh but holy shit that mission impossible soundtrack, I dont remember the sequels but MI1 yes.
somewherrrrrrrrrrrrrreover the rainnnnnbow
>>219408602Bond is Saturday morning cartoons. Being a Bond fan is like being a Scooby Doo fan. You can't take it that seriously, and you have to go into it with that same kind of attitude or else you're going to have a bad time.
>>219408766right, but my point is why bother with something so sub par anymore when theres something else out there that does everything better? is it really JUST nostalgia and brand loyalty? like if i want something to make me laugh, i would watch something that actually makes me laugh, not bond for goofy character names or witty one-liners. if i want villains with dreams of world domination, i can watch a marvel movie. if i want intrigue or action, i have a wide variety of options. if i want intrigue or action paired with any of the others, i have options too. i just dont really see them being "good" any more, and really just relics of the past.
>>219408849its good, everyone likes them except people with shit taste.
>>219408602pick one
both are shit
the weirdest thing about watching old Bond is remembering how MI5 and Britain used to try to protect the homeland.Now they just flood the homeland with brown swarms and try to genocide their own, which is a bit of an odd transition in priorities to say the least
>>219409032nobody asked for your /pol/ shit.
>>219408602Bad Bond movies are very rare. Even the weak ones have likable qualities.
the m:i movies turn into non-sensical and/or barebones plots that exist solely to set up cruise's stunts. there is no more intrigue, subterfuge or passion after the first couple of movies. the last 2 movies are especially bad.
>>219409086the point is is ultimately defeats the entire purpose Bond movies2026 real life Britain is pure proof that none of their 20th century espionage efforts even mattered at all, since they couldn't even be bothered to protect of preserve the most basic and obvious aspect of the British homeland
>>219408627Dalton was the best Bond as he actually played Bond from the books and he did the two best films Living Daylights & License To Kill as the cold war of the spy world ended. License To Kill even switching to the drug trade as a new enemy. GoldenEye was the last proper Bond film and is the last great Bond film ever made as it's still had some relevance to the time. The rest of Brosnan's movie are campy and fun. But Daniel Craig PC bullshit and being Jason Bourne lite like the franchise. Mission Impossible was more of a high tech balls to the wall action alternative.
>>219408602youre retardedthey were always cheesy light moviesthe (((craig movies))) were trend chasing "fresh and new" retardation
>>219409530>>219409523Casino Royale was great and completely unrelated to the rest of Craigs run.
>>219409560casino royale was visual vomit(((someone))) trying to copy bourne movies without realizing you can actually see what happens in the action of the first bourne movie
>>219409523i saw no problems or notable differences with brosnan's other movies, other than M being a spiteful bitch. i much preferred the old Ms, where he was just a desk-jockey boss bridging mi6 with the political bodies. lady M had this stupid chip on her shoulder where she constantly acted resentful to bond (but in the end when it really matters, deep down not really, wink wink.) liking goldeneye but not the others just seems dumb and arbitrary.
>>219409523>Daniel Craig PC bullshit and being Jason Bourne lite like the franchise.I meant killed the franchise. >>219409560I didn't care for it. But it does seem to be the only one of his that anyone at all likes.
>>219408602Bond was a cheap vacation trip for the blue collar british worker in the 60s/70s a la the Total Recall-concept>Become a cool guy, travel to an exotic place, eat tasty food, wear fancy clothes, drive expensive cars, use cool gadgets, sleep with hot babes and save the world from your shitty bossOnce we hit the late 80s/90s, the action hero dream among the filmgoers had gone through a morphication, from the more muscular army-of-one-type who use bigbig guns against whole countries of enemies to the John McClane-type, a John Doe trapped in a scenario he didn't want to be in, using his skills McGyver-style to kill off his enemy one by one.James Bond never evolved during this era and when the next phases of action arrived; gung-fu (The Matrix) and hyperrealistic (Bourne-trilogy), they tried to blend them together resulting in Casino Royale. It worked for the first movie but as the series progressed they focused on the wrong things and the movies didn't really feel like Bond-movies anymore as their style and the elements (no cool gadgets, hot babes, heavy drinking, relaxed vacation) had changed to much.Mission Impossible was originally an excuse for De Palma to shoot fancy cinematic shots in the kino city of Prague. The success and De Palmas refusal to take part in the next film let Tom Cruise form the series as a vanity-project making himself a Bond-hero as he view it, with the focus on him performing crazy stunts and looking cool doing it.
>>219408602>pulp comics>kitschy, campyThat's what they are
>>219409523>>219409596OP here.i left out bourne on purpose. partly because i only saw 2 or 3 of them when they first came out so i dont remember them well, and partly because i think other things do it better. i HATE the shaky camera shit. i kind of dislike bourne being such a magic super soldier. for better spy stuff, just watch mission impossible. for better action, just watch john wick. and no, i dont consider john wick to be the same sort of "super soldier" as jason bourne. bourne relies on movie tricks to vanish, and mystical "10 steps ahead of you" bullshit. wick you can see what he does and how kick-ass he is, but he also gets absolutely fucked up in the process. casino royale was fine, and you can fuck yourself. you're just a bitter cunt with a hate boner for craig.
>>219409783and they feel like b-movies that lack impact or purpose.
>>219409726>when the next phases of action arrived; gung-fu (The Matrix) and hyperrealistic (Bourne-trilogy), they tried to blend them together resulting in Casino Royale. It worked for the first movieFor me it never did. I always thought the hyperrealistic tone didn't jive with Bond. I never liked Craig.
>>219409901what purpose has any movie ever had? purposes arent for that.
>>219409653It had a decent story, good villain, cool gadgets & the best henchwoman in the entire series. Plus yeah I will show bias because of the N64 game. But I think it doesn't fall flat in areas like the other Brosnan films, Terry Hatcher being shit, all of TWINE, stupid invisible car etc.
>>219409901and you feel like a faggot with shit taste
>>219408602It's interesting to meet your complete opposite. I love Bond movies. I love the campy ones. I love the serious ones. They follow a comfy formula. I think every single Bond movie is good to great except for Thunderball, Quantum of Solace, Spectre, and No Time to Die.But I will agree there's no point in Bond anymore. He's a cold war male fantasy character, and they deliberately killed him off in the last movie, which already was a soft reboot of Bond. The modern world can't really have that kind of character anymore. Even in Goldeneye they'd already started playing with the idea that Bond was a "dinosaur". No point even complaining about it. It is what it is.
>>219409992>great except for Thunderball??? Thunderball is one of the best ones
>>219409917>I will show bias because of the N64 gameit sounds like this is 100% of it because your other hangups dont really make sense in comparison to others. >>219409919ok, sell me on why you think bond is good.
>>219409909>For me it never did.Who cares what you think. Back then it gathered buzz. People went to see it. They spent the money. Casino Royale made the bucks. That's what matters.
>>219410045It has cool iconic things in it, but it drags because they were overly focused on showing off the location rather than getting on with the movie. It's like they wanted to slow down after Goldfinger, and make a vacation advert. All Bond movies do that a bit, but it leaned too far into it to the point that the pacing is destroyed. One of the great things about Bond films, is that even as they change, they tend to stick to the same basic formula, which keeps the pacing on track. I think Thunderball deviates too much.
>>219410053>ok, sell me on why you think bond is good.no
>>219409789the shaky camera in bourne waits until you can see what actually happens before making a cutcompare that to the machete fight scenecasino royale was just trash, along with the other craig moviesquantum of solace is practically better simply for the fact the budget and writing were gutted to the point they couldnt afford to film 247 takes for their shitty action sequences so the shaky bullshit simply doesnt exist as much
>>219409992i think we talked in a thread last week. thunderball was just kind of forgettable to me. however, the underwater fight (while having a couple of flaws here and there) is leagues better than the moonraker space fight, which is just an absolute shit show in every aspect and detail. liking jaws is one thing, but that doesnt save moonraker from being just plain awful. i laughed out loud at the screen like pic related. but before anyone says "well if you laughed that hard, then it was good entertainment!" no, it was more laughing AT something in a derogatory way, and not FROM something like a good joke genuinely comedic situation. i would never rewatch it with eager anticipation of "oh boy! here comes the shitty part!", it would be cringe and dread. >The modern world can't really have that kind of character anymore. Even in Goldeneye they'd already started playing with the idea that Bond was a "dinosaur". No point even complaining about it. It is what it is.im not like mourning or resenting the trajectory of the franchise, but more talking about whether the "greatness" holds up. they just feel hollow, like a commercial for GQ.
>>219410235>casino royale was just trashyoure genuinely mentally ill
>>219410204i accept your concession that you're just a contrarian bitch with no conviction or integrity then.
>>219410273>i laughed out loud at the screen like pic related. but before anyone says "well if you laughed that hard, then it was good entertainment!"Ah, you see we're completely different. I don't put myself above the material and its aims. If it was intended to be goofy and it makes me laugh then it succeeded. I don't believe in ironic enjoyment. I believe in simplicity and purity. I embrace the material at the level it exists on. It's like when people laugh at 60s Batman for being campy when that's the entire point, and it's an explicit comedy.
>>219408602Not counting the Dalton era, the Bond movies have always been better than the Mission Impossible movies. Especially the middle Mission Impossible movies after MI:III all started to blend together to where if I try to remember specific scenes I'm not even sure which movie it's from because they are all the same.
>>219410109I think it has far and away the best plot of all the movies, to the point where when I watched Never Say Never Again I found myself thinking this is also one of the best plots of any Bond film too, until I realized they are the same plot.
>>219410443Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation are better than pretty much every Bind film even if they kind of run together a bit. I don't think that's necessarily a flaw though since the franchise ended up being a single continuous story unlike Bond.
>>219408602Tomorrow Never Dies predicted modern times.media mongul tries to start WW3 to get media broadcast rights in CCP china. except IRL it's an indian-murikan man living in shanghai.
>>219408602The only Mission Impossible movie that had threads that lasted more than a few posts was the one with Cavil in it because it's Cavil and Cavil is based. Nobody talks about any other Mission Impossible movie because they don't have plots or characters worth talking about and nobody cares about stunts after seeing them once. Literally every Mission Impossible thread will die with a low post count or within minutes because they seriously aren't worth talking about and the thought that they are on par with the Bond movies is absurd.
>>219409992would theseleave the rest
>>219410708Good picks, but no Christmas Jones?
I didn't see a Bond film until like 5 years ago. I've been slowly watching through them all, up to A View to a Kill next. For all the pop culture zeitgeist and reputation I have to say that the overall impact of ths series has not lived up to the hype at all. I legitimately think this is one of those things where th idea of it is better than the reality. I keep waiting for the moves to hit their stride and become memorable on their own but they simply have not done so. Mission Impossible left a much bigger impression on me for sure.
>>219410764already got sophie marceau and boat ladycant be too greedy
>>219410813youre doing so without the entire context that bond is literally the only action movie franchise until the 1980s
>>219410917I can understand that
I haven’t watched a single MI movie after the second one, am I missing out ?
>>219410418>It's like when people laugh at 60s Batman for being campy when that's the entire point, and it's an explicit comedy.is bond really an explicit comedy like that though? i just dont think that they're really THAT funny though. give me austin powers or mr. bean instead.
>>219410813Bond won't appeal to anyone younger than 30. You're simply incapable of seeing the appeal, because you grew up in a world with different ideals and fantasies.
>>219411040have you seen how shitty most other 60s 70s and movies were relative to the shiftiness of bond movies?
Yeah I tried watching Bond series from the start but I couldn't do it either. Unadulterated boomerslop.Brosnan Bond and onwards are still bangers thoughMI is too american and retarded
>>219411040It's not supposed to simply be a comedy as its main genre description, but there are explicit comedy sequences in the Roger Moore Bond movies, and there's humor in most of the rest of the films.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6pqVJOOAUo
>>219410667which begs the question of why people take bond so seriously. is it just nostalgia and riding the coattails of glories long past? like i said, propping up a long dead bandwagon and pretending it still has merit? it seems so performative.
>>219410813This is not me disparaging Bond, but a lot of it is basically just pulp. If you are going into it expecting anything being exceptionally revolutionary or profound or impactful viewing experience then you are not going to get that.
>>219411110>Yeah I tried watching Bond series from the start but I couldn't do it either. Unadulterated boomerslop.How old are you? If you're British and grew up in the 90s then you should have grown up with it on TV. Every year they'd show them all in a row. It's millennial slop too. If you're aged 30-40 and British you're highly likely to enjoy them too. It's something that connected generations. Anyone born after 2000 wouldn't get it.
>>219411175Thanksgiving Bond marathons have been a thing for some decades too
>>219411153>but a lot of it is basically just pulpIronically, pulp sensibilities in films would be pretty revolutionary about now, and don't mention capeshit.
>>219410813>For all the pop culture zeitgeist and reputation I have to say that the overall impact of ths series has not lived up to the hype at all. I legitimately think this is one of those things where th idea of it is better than the reality.thats what i've been saying.>I keep waiting for the moves to hit their stridefor me, it was a view to a kill. dalton's movies have a bit of a tone shift (away from smug, and into action) though, and then i feel like brosnan was the perfect blend of all 3 before him. you'll probably start having a better time soon, just like i did.
>>21941130590s pulp revival failed hard
>>219410813Could just be the aspect that Bond is at this point too influential for a lot of it to register. This is not the best analogy but, it is sort of how say LOTR casts such a large shadow over fantasy that the genre either takes so much from it or actively positions itself against it. James Bond did not create the spy genre, though it is such a huge influence on it. Bondmania was a thing that spawned so many spy novels and TV shows and films in the 60s to about the early-70s - a lot of what Austin Powers is actually parodying is in some ways more Bondmania type stuff than actual Bond itself. Bond as a character is an archetype that is just copied or parodied or people positioning there works as anti-Bond. The point I am making is a lot of Bond will not seem fresh or original or unique given just so much of media has copied, referenced, refined etc. etc. it. There is also probably the aspect that a lot of people that do like Bond got introduced to it as a kid. I can enjoy Bond films as an adult, but I can easily see how a lot of the old stuff I would just maybe not be interested in if I never had that earlier introduction and continued interest.
>>219410958yes, MI1 is quaint and MI2 sucks ass. 3 and 4 are bangers, the rest taper off but are all better than 1 and 2.
>>219411111theres light humor in marvel movies too, but even though they arent "comedies" they have enough redeeming qualities in other aspects to still be a better quality package. bond in comparison is just... dull (until dalton).
>>219411050I'm 33
>>219411175They are still showed in the UK all the time on ITV1 and ITV4. Just last Saturday FYEO was on ITV4, and it has been working its way through them for the last few months weekly.
>>219411153my main complaint is that it isn't pulpy enough
>>219408627>comedy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPUcveajN34yes i like James Bean movies
>>219411111For that Moonraker is silly, there are so many dark movements in that people just seem to gloss over. A woman gets chased and mauled by dogs. The scene where Jaws is in that clown getup walking down the dark alleyway. The part where the scientists knock over the container.
>>219410958I have always felt the first one was the best. Never go the appeal of 3. The actual franchise only really finds its character going forward by 4, so if if you like 4 then you probably generally like the rest.
>>219408602BOND MOVIES>26 films >only 3 are good>rest are badMI MOVIES >8 movies>4 are great to fantastic>3 are meh to okay>only one is badHmmmm
>>219411110>boomerslop.somehow i don't think you know what boomer or slop means, zoom zoom.
>>219408602Bond is better and not just the character but also the films
>>219410667>The only Mission Impossible movie that had threads that lasted more than a few posts was the one with Cavilnothey were all about bug lady
>>219409086Green voter spotted
>>219411175zoomers don't watch TV. and i doubt "slop" buzzwords posters like you did either.
>>219411665absolute shit taste should be banned
>>219411126The Connery movies are too old and don't really count. The Moore era has tons of notable movies and really gets it's stride with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. People still talk about the Brosnan movies to this day. The Craig Bond movies are ALL worth talking about even though they are up and down in how good they are. But any Craig Bond movie has traction and cultural relevance that the Mission Impossible movies can only dream of. Which is specifically because of how they are written and the characters they have in them. The Mission Impossible movies simply don't have any plot or characters of note. Which is why they aren't nearly as culturally relevant or memorable outside of the fact that they have Tom Cruise carrying them.
>>219411362>The point I am making is a lot of Bond will not seem fresh or original or unique given just so much of media has copied, referenced, refined etc. etc. it.op here, i did appreciate seeing the origins of a lot of those tropes/references. had me leo pointing a bunch. >LOTR casts such a large shadow over fantasy>bondmanialotr is good though. even if something else utilizes dragons, dwarfs, or orc in more interesting, direct, and complex ways, lotr is still good and doesnt feel as lacking as bond does. for all of the bondmania, bond feels like a caricature himself. and as a result, the more extreme derivatives feel more fulfilling and rewards. like i would rather watch austin powers or archer for the comedy, or mission impossible for the spy action, or marvel for the super villains. and again, splitting those for their best parts and bond being "the original whole package" it just feels like a weak jack of all trades and master of none.
>>219411779Name me 3 good bond movies that are not named...GoldeneyeGoldfinger Casino RoyaleI will fucking wait.
>>219411126>which begs the question of why people take bond so seriouslyI am not sure if seriously is the correct word. People like them and are passionate about them, but no next to no one is acting like they are high art. It is just something about it that clicks for people as fun escapism and its own particular iconography. Men just want to be Bond. There is nothing really more to it than that.
>>219411794>they aren't nearly as culturally relevant or memorable outside of the fact that they have Tom Cruise carrying them.half of them also have Simon Peg
>>219409032Jame Bond books were based on an IRL WW2 spec ops soldier. and the movies just watered down the books AFAIK. all the real army patriots of britbongs died long ago, in the era of boomers.
>>219411563>The scene where Jaws is in that clown getup walking down the dark alleyway.is immediately subverted by carnivale crowd getting in the way and foiling him. the "dark moments" dont carry weight.
>>219408602best bond movies are the brosnan ones (yes. even die another day. i don't get the fuss over madonna's cameo, but that movie was 30min too long.), some of the craig ones (actually only casino royale and skyfall) and the first connery's. Dr no is simply one of the best, goldfinger is epic kino.The moore films are just bad, every single one of them.
>>219411911>Simon Peghoo?
>>219411875>Men just want to be BondNot even joking there was a time when I was still trying to figure myself out and I would simply tell myself "What would Bond do?" in a given situation.
>>219412003sorry, Simon Pegg*
>>219411845There must be stuff you like that others do not and you do not get why it is not more popular. It just comes across as you think you should like Bond because it is popular. If it does not work for you it does work for you. If it does not work for you then people shitposting about Bond or autistically talking about the details are never going to provide you with some revelation as to why it is so popular.
>>219411860all the Brosnan movies. even the last one. and Timmy Dalton ones.
>>219412049wear a tuxedo and smack sluts, usually
>>219408849It's like watching Metropolis. There are much better Sci-fi movies that are not so old but it was one of the first ones so it has it's historic and romantic value. For Bond it's the same, off course movies today are better in action scenes, special effects and even history. But Bond movies are classics of cinema.
>>219411875this is basically just saying that its boomers and incels latching on to slop the same way women latch on to the kardashians.
>>219412061i still don't care, if he's not as relevent as Piers the "i love my fat waifu" Brosman
Bourne i don't give a fuck because of stupid matt damon's mutt. that guy's best role is in the departed where he gets a bullet in the head. Can't stand that guy.Best espionage movie is still hunt for red october
>>219412080Shit taste. Including the one with Halle Barry and the Asian guy pretending to be white or the one with the pervy dude who couldn't feel pain but they never did anything with it?Yawn
>>219412095so the appeal is purely academic curiosity on the origins of a specific genre of film?
>>219412147I like Bourne Identity and I think the Legacy spinoff is massively underrated and rewatch it all the time. But I HATE HATE HATE the shaky can of Ultimatum and Supremacy. I'm so glad that for the most part the shaky can era is over.
>>219412255I don't know the appeal depends on each person. For me it's something like that, just curiosity to see how action scenes were made in the past without special effects, how different was the humor back then, things like that.
>>219412063>There must be stuff you like that others do not and you do not get why it is not more popularnot really. im pretty self aware and humble about the niche things i like. "i like it because x, y, z, but i can understand why others wouldnt." and then i generally shut the fuck up about it. bondmania would make one think that theres something more substantial/profound to be had, considering the broad appeal and deep influence, but im finding it rather hollow. i can certainly understand "amazing at the time", but my current feelings/interpretation just lead me to think that they dont really hold up against modern alternatives. >It just comes across as you think you should like Bond because it is popularyeah i guess so. its just like "... really? THIS is what all the fuss is about? really?"
>>219410813Is there hype around Bond? Well-known and popular sure but, I don't think there is some sort of 'dude, you have to check out Dr No!' or 'OHMSS is technically brilliant' hype around any of it. More it is just a long-running franchise that sort of exists just there in the cultural zeitgeist rather than constant or massive hype around it. No one makes them out to be pinnacle of cinema or what you are guaranteed to love.
>>219412385but you can watch almost anything from those times and get the same insights. as such, old bond doesnt really stand out as particularly special in that regard, does it?
>>219412116>Slop Stop throwing around that word around in situations that it doesn't apply. All of the Bond movies have thought and effort put into them which is why it's so long in between movies instead of them getting churned out every other year on an assembly line like it's a Marvel movie. Probably the closest one that could be considered even remotely fast tracked and mailed in was Spectre.
I am going to bring up Kingsman in this thread
>>219408602I didn't read your post but I will say that there are more good bond movies than there are good Mission impossible movies but there are more nigh unwatchable bond movies than there are movies in the MI series.
>>219412654Kingsman sucks. They are not in the same league as either Bond, Mission Impossible or even Bourne. I didn't even finish the last Kingsman and it's been freely available on streaming for months.
>>219412654Do it. You won't do it faggit....That's what I thought
>>219412544not a modern hype, no, but there definitely was a long time ago. they were highly anticipated and big box office draws. and then cementing itself in the culture, it was basically guaranteed money and butts in seats. people wanted to see and talk about the new gadgets, the new villain, the new bond girl, etc. people love comparing bond actors. while bond as a character may have been slipping from cultural relevance, craig's portrayal definitely, actively, expedited it.
fixed the M:I rankings
>>219412601"good at the time" is not an argument for "good".
>>219412801I would bump up Ghost Protocol to S and Rogue Nation to A but other than that I agree fair anon
>>219412677for not reading it at all like a coward faggot, i actually respect your opinion and can even call it based just for the fact that you're willing to acknowledge that there are a ton of bad bond movies.
>>219412654if i remember right, i think only first one was decent.
>>219408602>MI vs Bond thread>99% of posts are about BondCase closed.
>>219412443>Bondmania would make one think that theres something more substantial/profound to be had, considering the broad appeal and deep influence, but im finding it rather hollow.I would say you are looking too deeply into it and expecting there to be something more than there is. Others have already conveyed the points in the thread that Bond is: long running as to be generational, generally popular and some people just especially liking it, it is pulp tier entertainment with its own iconography that many find appealing, and the franchise is not acting like it is high art. To echo the other post you are replying to, if it doesn't click for you then it is unlikely to ever even if people try to explain it.
>>219412964yes, because the focus was on bond (which is far more extensive than mi) and his general shortcomings, asking the question of whether they hold up and what the appeal can even still be when there are other things that outclass it. the topic is brought up because of my current personal experience in watching the franchises. its not a death battle thread.
>upcoming bond movie wants to be like mi1>as in no guns
I never felt like it successfully elevated the stakes or the scope from Dr. No. Even when they're dealing with nukes or going to space, the general feeling didn't change at all from the very first film. I get that this kind of reflects on Bond's character but as a viewer there's little reason to watch 30 distinct movies instead of just the best 5 on rotation since they're all basically the same.
>>219408602the thing is, i'd say there is no point to james bond any more but i wonder if i'm jaded from the craig era movies or is modern espionage itself boring? maybe a bit of both but i'm also confident in saying that spectre/no time to die were so bad they've made people question if bond can exist in modern times. there's some truth to that because threats these days are so ethereal that they make shit movies like computers are evil, damn - look at how hamfistedly mission impossible dealt with aii guess you have to ask yourself what you expect to get from a bond movie. any action will be compared to mission impossible and will be deemed inferior because mission impossible only exists as a vehicle for tom cruise to do death defying cool shit therefore what's the point of bond trying to do it. they tease troubled/introspective bond for a tiny fraction in some of the craig movies before resuming regular operations and bourne has done the grief stricken/regret filled agent guy already and far deeper than they will ever do with bond. they tried to do some soft reboot stuff with blofeld/spectre and absolutely failedthe thing left over for bond to excel at would be some tight story about actually countering threats from foreign powers. but they are too paralysed by fear of offending the overseas box office to do any contemporary geopolitical stuff like bond against russia/china/israel/usa/whatever. i'd say this based on the whatever the fuck the story was of the last bond movies and then if you look at top gun maverick where the enemy is non descript foreign peopleso in conclusion, i say bond is creatively bankrupt so yeah, probably no point to making them any more. if they had balls, they would do period specific self indulgent bond movies set in the 60s or something. but, they will probably just have another bond fight some generic evil guy from someone's past again or bond vs ai and it will be awful>>219412801the final reckoning should be on it's own F+ tier
>>219413066>if it doesn't click for you then it is unlikely to ever even if people try to explain it.i think thats going to be my takeaway from this, as i assumed from the start. its a relic of the past and doesnt really start getting good until dalton, with only a few highlights here and there before it. its not ACTUALLY special or notable anymore.
>>219413173I thought Goldfinger and Casino Royale did a good job of shaking things up.Also the concept of a bank robbery where escape was never a part of the plan but rather you are going to nuke the money is very Kino even if the science behind it wasn't 100% accurate.
>>219413234They should just do period pieces instead of trying to be modern and trying to invent new gadgets that aren't really all that fantastic anymore. Make Bond aloof again but in the Connery way of carelessly fiddling with Q's dangerous gear instead of just quipping after every kill.
>>219413386Goldfinger's plan was extremely clever and a very memorable part of the franchise for sure.
>>219413386yeah goldfinger is probably my favorite old one. it did more things right/cool and did fewer things wrong/bad.
>>219413273>really start getting good until dalton, with only a few highlights here and there before it.I would not necessarily say that. Obviously people beyond you do like pre-Dalton stuff. I it is more that whatever is there they like and find good, you just have the opposite taste and opinion of. I am not of the opinion you have to like Bond or you have to find it good, though just dismissing it as bad when a lot of it seems to be your own preferences is probably not the best way to go about it. I do wonder, what exactly was your frame of reference pre going into Bond? Was it general pop cultural view, seeing anons talk about it on /tv/? It could well be you were always going to find it shit (I can fully get why people would not be interested in Bond films in general or specific films/eras/actors), though it seems like Bond was hyped up in your mind into something it just is not and it has marred your conceptualisation and viewing of it.
>>219413111Dude if there was anything worth talking about in the MI movies they would be talking about it. Nobody talks about them because there isn't much worth taking about. It's just Tom Cruise running and doing a bunch of stunts.
>>219413527general cultural love, "cool/suave guy, super spy with cool gadgets that saves the world and fucks hot women" felt like he was kind of put on a pedestal. i saw "the world is not enough" in theater as a kid. i know that my mom watched some old ones on tv when i was a kid, but i dont think i ever sat there and watched them through, as i had little-to-no memory of them or any real details (i definitely remember the jaws smile though). i was probably playing with toys while it was on in the background for me, like i would do while most of her old shit was on (christ fuck the amount of times she watched the sound of music, the king and i, the ten commandments, and dark shadows). i feel like i looked up to super spy stuff like the venture brothers did, but then in actually watching the classics... it was like a "never meet your heroes" moment. the more modern ones just feel like better movies by cutting a lot of the cringe camp/pulp. i dont think the "cool factor" hits the same anymore, and im too late for it.
>>219409086this, desu
>>219408602>most of the old bond films are just... not that goodget the fuck off my board
>>219413806and they're cool as fuck with a good progression of plot, intrigue, and action. its just that simple. they're worth seeing. it doesnt need to be an mla essay. the only things that really get talked about in regards to bond are tierlisting comparisons of various aspects: script, actors, villains, babes. thats it. thats not deep discussion. its chicken heads gossiping, dont kid yourself. my confrontation of its place/value in the cultural mindset is more genuine discussion than bond has gotten here in a LONG time.
>>219413806>>219413974and furthermore, this topic has nothing do with the value of "talking about" the movies or "threads on /tv/", but of the entertainment value of the movies themselves.
>>219413234>>219413462A lot of the problems people identify with Bond in the contemporary are more due to the attitudes and approach by the people working on it. You can set Bond in the 1960s though it could just easily end up with so many of the same underlying problems, both specific to the people working on Bond and are found in the general contemporary film industry. So it would likely merely be a 1960s aesthetic rather than any meaningful return to a something like a 1960s tone, writing and so version of Bond.
>>219414033It literally does. Cultural relevance is a strong indicator of the overall quality of something beyond pure surface level and quick novelty. Kind of like the avatar movies.
was he ourguy?
>>219414206>if people arent talking about it, then its not good and not worth watchinglmao you're so desperate for validation and to fit in somewhere.
>>219413974>thats not deep discussion. its chicken heads gossiping, dont kid yourself. my confrontation of its place/value in the cultural mindset is more genuine discussion than bond has gotten here in a LONG time.Not him, but calm down, anon. I say this for your own benefit, you are coming across like a pretentious and smarmy midwit cunt. There have been plenty of threads on /tv/ that have discussed Bond in depth whether you think the discussion is that or not, and if you missed them than that is on you. Frankly, going through this thread there is not all that much being discussed regarding it as you think there is since plenty of anons have gave you answers and it all going in a circle for what amounts to Bond not working for you and you keep wanting more explanation when there is not one to be given.
Chad Brosnan>Virgin Craigalso >DEI/black moneypennydogshit movies.btw De Silva is the only based character from Craigs movies
>>219414088Bond movies are a product of their specific eras. They change with the times. It's the only way to keep something like Bond running for as long as it has.The problem the Broccolis had was that they weren't nearly as woke as the general public memed them out to be and they constantly had to thread the needle in recent era Bond movies. It's why the promotional ad campaign for No Time to Die was way more woke than the movie itself. The movie came out during peak woke and they had to keep the various factions off their back until the movie came out and then by the time the movie already came out it was already branded as woke even though it wasn't really that woke overall. I'm sure it was a massive hassle trying to thread the cultural needle at the time with a character that is as wildly masculine as Bond.It's probably a factor in why they finally ended up caving and selling to Amazon. Just to not have to deal with the headache coming from both sides.
>>219412654i was entertained. but it was obviously not as edgy or campy as the comic sauce material. but you can say that for all westerosi comics.KM2 was lolz. not even a Bond-like anymore. killed off almost all the brits, then replaced them with amerikana spooks funded by fake-whisky.
>>219414088that's fine, I just think the concept of the Bond Villain Lair especially is firmly in the retro-futuristic Mid Century Modern aesthetic, and trying ti modernize it just ends up with sterile glass and stainless steel compounds with villains who are just literally Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg. Locking the setting to the 60s makes the look and feel better as well as maintaining the Cold War conflict instead of nebulous gay modern computer problems.
>>219414623>Just to not have to deal with the headache coming from both sides.no wokies were gonna spend money on any movies. certainly not the blacked moneypenniless fans who don't exist. MGM is full retarded.
>>219414503talking about anything that isnt tierlisting the movies, the bond actors, the villains, or the girls (or shitposting about connery's body or jap disguise) is much more than the usual "discussion". thats just a fact. i dont personally care if that is what people want to talk about on /tv/ though. the comparison that "it gets talked about, mi doesnt, so its better" is what is actually pretentious, and just laughably pathetic and out of touch on a principle level. theres no pretense or smarm in calling that out.
>>219414673just watch Austin Powers.
>>219414831yes, Austin Powers was superior to the majority of Bond in terms of aesthetic
>>219414673Are there many examples of post 9/11 villain lairs? The only one i can think of is the mobile hacker rig from Die Hard 4.
>>219415054Quantum of Solace comes to mind, otherwise not so much. Maybe the "rich evil dude living on a remote island" was a little on the nose around that time.
>>219414789Dude there nothing in the MI movies to talk about. If your movie doesn't have anything in it worth taking about it just isn't that good. I'm doesn't mean it's bad. It's just not that good beyond a certain level and not much more than a thrill ride at universal studios. If you can't wrap your head around that concept then there's probably a lot of other things that are beyond your level of understanding as well. Cultural relevance matters. It's just how the universe was built. If anything be made at god for making it that way.
>>219415054kingsman had a mountain stronghold"the hive" in resident evilsyndrome's layer in the incredibles, but thats capeshit.
I can't exactly argue against OP.If you are looking for flaws in old James Bond movies, they're nothing but flaws.But then a switch goes off in your mind, and old James Bond movies have a flavor that cannot be replicated.Those flaws are the sticks that hold the marbles in a game of Ker Plunk.Scrub away those flaws, and the marbles fall. You've got a modern movie, and who wants to watch that?I can't talk somebody into embracing what old James Bond movies are because it's not logical, but I suggest you step away and leave yourself open to reconsidering.
>>219415054Quantum was in a giant flammable hotel in the desert. Javier Bardem had his computer lair on a remote island. Same with Mr. Robot in No Time to Die he had his super bio lair on a remote island.
>>219415202lmao, you really are one of those desperate cinephiles whose only hope at human connection is talking about movies. the pedestal you put movie discussion on is hilarious. doubly so when your primary metric is /tv/ threads and shitposting.
>>219415371Your post isn't the pwn you think it is. Kind of the opposite desu.
>>219415202
>do you expect me to talk>no mr bond. i expect you to install the new vs studio code ai pair programming extension and let us train in the mi6 repositories
>>219415505Autists don't understand cultural relavence. That's the point.
>>219414789>>219413974Anon, there have a been threads before that have discussed the cultural placement of Bond, its evolution, its place in the current world and all that stuff. Discussion about Bond's placement as a franchise predates this site to GoldenEye - and /tv/ has had discussions plenty of times about the Cold War transition, the effects of 9/11, Bond in the 2010s, Bond going forward, whether Bond needs to go back to the past, whether Bond can be done at all anymore, and whatnot. A lot of the discussion that you think is in depth in this thread is not really all that much in depth compared to what many threads have been like regarding the thing you want to discuss. A lot of this thread is just you not finding Bond lived up to the hype, anons trying to explain why the films are popular, and you not seemingly being satisfied with the answer. Now maybe the thread has just been too broad in how you started the discussion off, maybe the right anons are just not here, maybe it is just you looking for answers that cannot be given. In any case, you have not created or directed a thread to a new talking point, and most of what you have directed the thread to, which maybe you just do not realise, is asking why is Bond so popular and just not accepting the answers. At this point it sort of seems like anons are wasting there time because you are either not accepting the answers to your main question or you are not actually being exactly clear what you want to discuss. Yeah, there is probably some people that are just arguing with in a just conformational way or not discussing with you properly simply in the way this site is, but plenty of anons have engaged with you in discussion and there have been far more serious discussions on this site regarding Bond beyond your presence.
>>219415827so let's talk about it in more depth and maybe it'll click
>>219415945The MI movies and particularly the latter ones aren't stories. They are stunt vehicles for Tom Cruise. They literally come up with a stunt they want to do for Tom Cruise then they build a script around it. Look it up. A lot of times they are just coming up with the story points on the fly during production. It's all documented and not a secret. It's not a knock on the movies per se' because the people making them know what they are and why they exist. They are two hour stunt driven thrill rides. It's fine for what it is but they don't leave any kind of lasting impact after watching them. It's just not going to be on the same level as a Bond movie which have a lot more going on in them thematically and character wise.
>>219414956This. I'm tired of pretending it wasn't the best and most iconic aspects of bond distilled into one grand loving parody.The sequels...however....oof and yikes. Glib facsimiles that didn't quite understand the much needed cultural release of the original. A couple of destitute rehashes yearning to eek more green of the long since dried teat of the comedic parodied venturous spy film. What a display of fascistic incompetence and the inability to say no to the capatistic pangs of laissez-faire repugnant squalor of self-reference and camera winking alluvium.
>>219416462>oof and yikesok get lost, lala fraggits.
>>219415827>there have a been threads before that have discussed the cultural placement of Bond, its evolution, its place in the current world and all that stufflol, yeah maybe 10% of the time. its not that i never happens, but it is utterly eclipsed by the usual fair of tier listing and comparisons.>the discussion that you think is in depth"deepER" does not necessarily mean substantially deep, but objectively it is still deeper than the 90% shit i listed above. >you have not created or directed a thread to a new talking point>you are not actually being exactly clear what you want to discussi dont expect a thread like this to be profound, and you seem to be implying that it could/should be but its my fault for not making it so. im just looking to aggregate some comments and opinions to perhaps give me an insight into alternate perspectives. i dont expect to agree with them or to change my mind personally, but just to possibly give me something to think about in a different way. im open to being surprised though. i appreciate the honest responses.that said, "bond gets threads" as a mark of quality is laughably stupid and pretentious. doubly so when we have multiple concurrent and perpetual generals for a shitty reality show that nobody outside of 4chan has even heard of, let alone talks about. "theres nothing to talk about for mission impossible" is also fake and retarded, because you could just as easily tier list villains and girls and such, as well as discuss whether the threats are believable or valid realworld commentary. right up there with the question of "why do people bother latching on to bond" there is an equally valid flip side of "why not latch on to other spy movies?" but it seems that pretentious cunts just want to zombie bandwagon. i guess 60 years and generational upheaval with massive geopolitical, social, and technological leaps, as opposed to 30 years of "technology has always been like this" will do that to a motherfucker.
>>219416462Austin Powers 1&2 are great. I knew it was over in the very first scene of 3 because of the scene with Tim Cruise in it. It's always a sign that a concept is dead and has run it's course and is now eating it's own tail by referencing itself instead of referencing the thing it was created to reference in the first place.
>>219416586>the complete in abilty to engage with and debate opinions that differ from your owntypical goldmember fanatic.
>>219415945I do not see what there is really is for anons to say beyond what has already been got at regarding why people like Bond without either just repeating the core points or risking getting into stuff you want to avoid. You also seem to be trying to actually ask four questions that are separate. Why Bond is popular, Bond vs M:I, the historical development of Bond in culture, and internally the development of franchise. A lot of that is all way too broad and all too different to be darting around or answering in a single thread. You needed to have narrowed down and been more specific from the start.
>>219416779>because you could just as easily tier list villains and girls and such, as wellNo you can't. Unless you want to make a tier list strictly for yourself. You know why? Because nobody remembers anything about the MI movies. Especially the middle ones because they are literally the same and indistinguishable from each other.
>>219416784that scene was a reference to M:I also doing Bond but with elevated action and production. It's a good scene.
>>219409086Nobody asked for you to be in this country either
>>219417079lol
>>219416264>They are two hour stunt driven thrill rides.still cool, entertaining, better at spy stuff (gadgets, intrigue, etc) than what bond does.>the same level as a Bond movie which have a lot more going on in them thematically and character wise.and unironically, marvel movies do this better too. its a product of its time, where the writing, acting, and presentation are all very flat and stiff. the villains often outshine bond himself, and almost nothing differentiates the women aside from looks. for every part that you dismiss about mission impossible or other movies, it seems that the same can be equally dismissed of bond if you just remove your biases.
>>219416879>A lot of that is all way too broad and all too different to be darting around or answering in a single thread. You needed to have narrowed down and been more specific from the start.>anons cant possibly chime in with their own answers for whatever parts they care/know about. what a ridiculous notion.
>>219417079I took it as Austin Powers becoming so famous in Universe that he got Tom Cruise the biggest star in the world to play him l. And if course it would be a hyper idealized version of him instead of someone dorky like Austin Powers. And it fell flat for me because the whole thing was about Austin Powers and not the tropes of James Bond and spy movies. Which showed me the franchise was eating it's own tail and out if ideas. And I was correct because Austin Powers 3 is where the franchise died. The entire microcosm was summed up in the very first scene and I knew it in real time as I saw it.
>>219416586that was a very post by that anon, but Spy Who Shagged Me and Goldmember are horseshitI guess gay people also arrived at the correct opinion of the Austin Powers sequels
>>219409523Mostly agree, but I consider From Russia With Love as the best as it's actually decent as a Cold War thriller, with just enough Bond to make it fun and unique. Also SPECTRE is actually subtle and menacing, before the Dr. Evil/pantomime villain era.
>>219408602Our story so far:> James Bond has slept with 3 woman, including one sent to kill him at the airport. > He doesn't really have a plan, other than to let the bad guy capture him, and then to come up with the first good idea within his field of vision> Ethan Hunt hasn't slept in 4 days. In those 96 hours, he's spent 73 of them either in a moving car or running> He has a plan, but it involves perfect timing, destroying millions of dollars worth of property; and will probably result in explosions so large that the mission will be blown overnightMeanwhile, George Smiley walked by unnoticed; having already poisoned Dr No, and having stolen all of his research, care of the guy who delivered Dr No's wine delivery the prior week
>>219417557The British also decided not to send Sidney Reilly. Not because he couldn't get the job done, but because they couldn't be sure he wouldn't just kill Dr No and take over his operation
It's a buzzword but, people like Bond for the soul of it. That's basically it. If you like it you like it. I know that's not a detailed or substantive answer but, it is fundamentally the purest truth to it.
>>219417365>the best scene in a bad movie was the first sign of trouble ok stupid
>>219417646>soulso its just nostalgia and passed down hype. got it.
best spy kino incoming
>>219417722It's hard for autists to comprehend difficult to quantify things. It's not your fault man. I get it. Just do your best.
>>219417928>quantify
>>219408703MI2 soundtrack is even better
>>219408602Watching an old Bond movie is like watching a porno movie without the sex parts.
>>219418389lel good one
>>219417958Autust AND schitzo. Good lord what did they do to you.
>>219417827The best spy kino is Callan.
>>219408602Why would I want to watch a midget
i prefered ger in bond over mi
>>219418865Which one. Tom or Craig?
>>219416264As opposed to Bond films where it's just a cheap excuse to name drop and flash fancy cars, champagne, hotels, and tourist destinations?>B-b-but the books came first!llThat's cope, and you know it.
>>219410053Little known fact about the Brosnan movies, he only appeared in four films because he was considered difficult to work with as he would insist on the addition of multiple scenes where his female co-stars would eat hamburgers and cake while drinking large amounts of milkshakes.
>>219422616how very brave of you to come out to everyone that you're gay.
>>219412719Bond wouldn't fuck a chick up the ass. Not very classy.
