login

Author Topic: Why this Bond?  (Read 31056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline macleod

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1076
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2007, 11:29:50 AM »
I'll agree, I thought the riffing was pretty funny, but Casino Royale was good, and sometimes Mike and Kevin had to be too whiny about it. Some movies deserve a whiny thrashing (like SW: EP II) but in this one it seemed a bit petulant


Offline Rattrap007

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
  • Liked: 22
  • Decepticons forever!
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2007, 12:58:41 PM »
Me, I am a big James Bond fan, hence the 007 in my screen name.

But to me this was a dull dull Bond movie. Basically it is Bond stripped of most all of it's action, crank up the amount of sex, and give no big gadgets. And what a crappy plot. Oh bad guy tries to blow up a plane and fails so he has to win back the money before the terrorist kill him. Yawn.  No witty 1 liners, no big action packed gun fights. There were a few sparse action sequences, but they were overly far fetched even by bond standards. Come on the crane chase was laughable (Bond SMASH!!) when the bad guy is part kangaroo.

I will admit there have been some turkeys in the Bond Franchise (Moonraker, Die Another Day, etc) Heck I actually like some of the classic Bond formula. You get good action sequences, cool gadgets, you get naked chicks in the credits, and you get funny quips.

I would like to see other Bond films done (DAD, TLD, Moonraker, etc), but this deserved it in my opinion..

Also feel LOTR needed it too. I am not a LOTR fan and that movie is too damn long with out the riffing.




Offline Hobbit

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2007, 01:10:36 PM »
Me, I am a big James Bond fan, hence the 007 in my screen name.

But to me this was a dull dull Bond movie. Basically it is Bond stripped of most all of it's action, crank up the amount of sex, and give no big gadgets. And what a crappy plot. Oh bad guy tries to blow up a plane and fails so he has to win back the money before the terrorist kill him. Yawn.  No witty 1 liners, no big action packed gun fights. There were a few sparse action sequences, but they were overly far fetched even by bond standards. Come on the crane chase was laughable (Bond SMASH!!) when the bad guy is part kangaroo.

I will admit there have been some turkeys in the Bond Franchise (Moonraker, Die Another Day, etc) Heck I actually like some of the classic Bond formula. You get good action sequences, cool gadgets, you get naked chicks in the credits, and you get funny quips.

I would like to see other Bond films done (DAD, TLD, Moonraker, etc), but this deserved it in my opinion..

Also feel LOTR needed it too. I am not a LOTR fan and that movie is too damn long with out the riffing.

To the bolded portion, so basically what you're saying is that it was dull because it was more dignified and cerebral than the two hour explosions we've come to expect from Bond movies and instead more closely resembles the books and the Connery movies than the mediocre, drawn-out explosions or cheesy jokes that Brosnan and Moore were known for?


Offline sarcasm_made_Easy

  • Compsognathus
  • *****
  • Posts: 10320
  • Liked: 15
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2007, 08:46:34 PM »
i thought the plot of this one was brilliant.  Yeah he has to win the money back so he doesnt get killed but more than that the two governments of america and britain need this one man more than they need several million dollars and an agent.  made for some cool dynamics in my opnion. 


Offline Sharktopus

  • Ephialtes
  • *****
  • Posts: 7584
  • Liked: 3
  • May the Porkins be with you.
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2007, 10:31:23 PM »
It turns what could be a really funny RiffTrax into just two guys who will whine about anything they see in the movie.

Funny, that's the thing that annoys me the most about Riffs of really bad movies - the whinyness. Okay, I get it, guys, Phantom Menace is really really bad. Now make fun of it.


Offline MarkAndrew

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 2
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2007, 06:58:28 AM »
You do realize that Mike and Kevin don't just riff "bad" movies anymore, right? LOTR is a great example of this.

Maybe you should watch the movie with commentary before you jump to a conclusion? (You can read what others think about it in this same board).

EDIT: to answer your question, I think it was chosen because it is a better movie (sometimes they are easier to watch than ones that are really crappy) and also it's more widely available and accessible than the Moores and the Conneries. Would you really want to sit through Moonraker?

(Actually I would love it if they riffed on that one..)

I HAVE seen it with commentary and I second his opinion.

I understand that it's easier to sit through a good movie than a bad one, but there are other, tolerable but still silly Bond films that would have made a MUCH better choice.  Since all the Bond films are available at Netflix and Best Buy/Blockbuster.  There should have been no problem with accessability.

Again, my feedback is: Don't Riff good movies.  Good movies don't deserve the snarkiness and that takes away from the wit of a good Riff.


Offline Tyrant

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3981
  • Liked: 71
  • 2007-11 Satanic Humanitarian Award Winner
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2007, 08:03:29 AM »

  I think pretty much any movie should be fair game. Good. Bad. Boring. Cheesy. What have you. If you limit the riffing only to bad movies, you won't get the variety we've all come to know and love from Mike and co.  If they do a movie you don't want them doing, then don't buy the rifftrack.  ;)

  This movie wasn't a bad Bond movie. I'll admit that I probably should have seen it first without the riffing, but...eh...Not a bad Bond either. I prefer Connery as Bond (mrrroooowwrrr), however. No one can match his class. Can you imagine the size of the hole that Mike and crew could tear outta him, though? What with the accent and all?

 


Offline gammer

  • Second Banana
  • ****
  • Posts: 4012
  • Liked: 3
    • GoodTimers Hockey
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2007, 08:35:20 AM »
I agree that any movie is fair game. But the thing they need to ask (which I'm sure they do) is: does the movie takes itself seriously or not?
So far most of the movies that have received the rifftrax treatment have taken themselves seriously...with the exception of maybe 5th Element or Wonka.

By having one fan saying a movie shouldn't be riffed because its good, is just so subjective. So, who cares if you think Bond was a good movie...there are lots of other fans who didn't like it. So lets keep our perceptions of good/bad movies out of the mix when talking about rifftrax.


Offline MarkAndrew

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 2
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2007, 09:29:30 AM »
I agree that any movie is fair game. But the thing they need to ask (which I'm sure they do) is: does the movie takes itself seriously or not?
So far most of the movies that have received the rifftrax treatment have taken themselves seriously...with the exception of maybe 5th Element or Wonka.

By having one fan saying a movie shouldn't be riffed because its good, is just so subjective. So, who cares if you think Bond was a good movie...there are lots of other fans who didn't like it. So lets keep our perceptions of good/bad movies out of the mix when talking about rifftrax.

Hey all I can offer is my subjective opinion.  And I think they need to hear it.  Once a week, at most.  :-)

And it does affect whether the riff is good or not.  If you're riffing a good movie, some of the riffs sound...well...whiny for lack of a better word.

And I don't think I'm alone in my opinion.  If enough of your audience doesn't like something, then you're doing something wrong.


Offline Nunyerbiz

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3400
  • Liked: 953
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2007, 09:39:43 AM »
Well, for me it's really on a riff by riff basis. As I said in another thread, I don't think it's particularly funny when they get into whiny / movie snob mode. It's never happened so much during any single rifftrack where it spoiled the enjoyment, but it's an annoyance here and there. I don't think it's really a matter of whether the subject movie is "good" or not. Phantom Menace was an awful movie and I thought they completely abandoned any attempt at humor for noticable stretches just to tell us how awful it was. As a general rule, I don't give a shit if Mike or Kevin think a movie is bad or not. I don't buy Rifftrax for their opinions, I buy them for the comedy. Sometimes the opinions have comedic value, sometimes they are just whining.


Offline 6079SmithW

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2007, 09:43:57 AM »
Where did all of this 'whining' business come from? Whining is a tone of voice, what you're looking for would be closer to 'nit-picking'. And I would be pretty annoyed if they stopped doing movies I liked, since I much prefer buying the dvds of those. Also, my cousin will only watch rifftrax of movies he likes anyway. So I counter your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal hearsay!


Offline Douglin

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2007, 09:44:49 AM »
If enough of your audience doesn't like something, then you're doing something wrong.

Or maybe you've got the wrong audience....


You need to look at this from a business stand-point, while many of us will buy/rent any movie that gets riffed, they'll be other people who won't want to spend any extra money and will only get rifftrax for movies they already own, so they have to do these types of films every so often to get more customers.


Offline Jeyl

  • Blue Beer Drinker
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 0
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2007, 10:39:11 AM »
I agree that any movie is fair game. But the thing they need to ask (which I'm sure they do) is: does the movie takes itself seriously or not?
I don't think this film takes itself seriously. It's nice and relaxed and it has a cadence that we hardly get with any other Bond film.

Just look at the structure at how the first quarter of the film is played. Bond goes through four different locations trying to figure out that the bad guys are up too and keeps finding clues that neither he nor the audience understands. It's not until he gets stuck when he figures out what the clues actually mean. And the main purpose of what the bad guys are doing isn't given to us until we're literally minutes before it actually happens. And seeing the film again and knowing all the clues that are given makes much better sense.

And hearing Mike and Kevin complain that the title doesn't come into play till the half way point is sort of counterdicting. I remember listening to Kevin Murphy's review of the new ALIEN Director's Cut and he couldn't stop himself from expressing how much he loved the film. Believe me, I love ALIEN as much as he does, but the ALIEN that the film is about doesn't come into the picture for a whole 45 minutes! Even director Ridley Scott said that "Nothing happens in the first 45 minutes of the movie" "I decided never to rush it". The difference between ALIEN and Casino Royale is that in Casino, there is a lot of things happening in the first 45 minutes before we get to the title's.

Also, anybody remember Dr. No? He didn't show his face till literally the last quarter of the film. The last quarter, not half way.

I think this track was meant for people who did think the film was too long. Honestly, I've never heard from people who complained about it's length. Heck, this is the longest Bond film in the entire franchise. If I have anything to say about the length it's that the last action sequence in Venice was a bit unnecessary. It wasn't in the book and it was sort of confusing. But that's it.


Offline MarkAndrew

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Liked: 2
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2007, 10:55:53 AM »
Where did all of this 'whining' business come from? Whining is a tone of voice, what you're looking for would be closer to 'nit-picking'. And I would be pretty annoyed if they stopped doing movies I liked, since I much prefer buying the dvds of those. Also, my cousin will only watch rifftrax of movies he likes anyway. So I counter your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal hearsay!

I'm not sure what to call it, 'whining' isnt' completely right, but it came closest so I went with it.  Maybe nit-picking is closer.

Love, I love Rifftrax and am very grateful to be getting Mike, Kevin and Bill's brand of humor again.

But there were a lot of times in this movie and The Matrix where I kept saying "you're missing the point" when they'd make some quip or another.   I don't have those moments when they're Riffing bad movies.


Offline RobtheBarbarian

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4049
  • Liked: 8
  • Snarl!
Re: Why this Bond?
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2007, 10:58:11 AM »
But there were a lot of times in this movie and The Matrix where I kept saying "you're missing the point" when they'd make some quip or another.   I don't have those moments when they're Riffing bad movies.

That's because accurately reciting the actual meaning and intent behind a certain scene in a film you like  doesn't make for a good joke.