The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Bond was better when he had Blofeld to deal with, and the threat of SPECTRE. Blofeld and his organisation had time to develop over a number of movies, and we knew what the threat was right away. Yeah there were all of the sub-divisions and plots he had to deal with - eg Goldfinger, but at least it was a proper threat. The worst recent example would have to be Tomorrow Never Dies, when our villain is a media chap. Ooh, scary. I can't help but think that the quality of the Bond movies would improve if SPECTRE still existed, sometihng consistent to tie the films together.
If you want to really see the problem with multiple villians though, with a new one for each movie, look no further than Star Wars. Darth Vader. Bad Guy in the first movie, gets blasted off into space. But he's okay, and back in the second, when we learn that he's actually Luke's father! Then in the third, there's redemption. What an arc! What a villain!
New movies, Darth Maul looks like he could be a fantastic villain for the trilogy. But he dies at the end of the first movie. Damn. But that's okay, because we've got Count Dooku (albeit in a rather confused role) he's bound to play a significant part in the next two movies. Yes, and he lives through the second. Only to die in the first scenes of the third movie. When we get General Grevious. A coughing robot. Where the hell did he come from? Oh, a cartoon series. Great. But if you haven't seen it it's just another bad guy with no past, no story, just a plotsticle.
I watched the X-Men the other day. The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is a fascinating aspect of the series. Whilst they have to work together in the second, it seems they'll be enemies again later on. What's more, a Magneto prequel is planned. So he has a backstory, and more importantly, he has a future.
One of the failing of the Batman series of the 90's was its constant killing of its bad guys. Fair enoguh when you've only got one to deal with, but by the time the turkey that was Batman and Robim arrived you had two new villains backstories to tell (and Arnie demanded an awful lot of screen time) don't you think if the bad guys lived to fight another day the battles between good and evil would mean a little more? I've yet to see the new Batman, but the focus isn't so much on the villains here anyway, is it? As it's more about Batman's beginning (funny that)
Maybe it's just me. Being a second child, I always had to play the bad guys. I had the decepticons. Skeletor and his crew. In play, I'd want them to get away, even if I didn't actually want my evil plots to succeed...
Doesn't it make more sense to let evil live to fight another day though? Learning the strengths and weaknesses, creating even greater battles? It's odd, especially in super-hero type movies where they like to leave it open for a sequel, that t's not through the nemesis? Does it say something about the world we live in today that evil has to be defeated? Must good always triumph in every single aspect? Can today's movie going public not live with the idea of the bad guy getting away, even if to make his downfall greater in the long run?
If you want to really see the problem with multiple villians though, with a new one for each movie, look no further than Star Wars. Darth Vader. Bad Guy in the first movie, gets blasted off into space. But he's okay, and back in the second, when we learn that he's actually Luke's father! Then in the third, there's redemption. What an arc! What a villain!
New movies, Darth Maul looks like he could be a fantastic villain for the trilogy. But he dies at the end of the first movie. Damn. But that's okay, because we've got Count Dooku (albeit in a rather confused role) he's bound to play a significant part in the next two movies. Yes, and he lives through the second. Only to die in the first scenes of the third movie. When we get General Grevious. A coughing robot. Where the hell did he come from? Oh, a cartoon series. Great. But if you haven't seen it it's just another bad guy with no past, no story, just a plotsticle.
I watched the X-Men the other day. The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is a fascinating aspect of the series. Whilst they have to work together in the second, it seems they'll be enemies again later on. What's more, a Magneto prequel is planned. So he has a backstory, and more importantly, he has a future.
One of the failing of the Batman series of the 90's was its constant killing of its bad guys. Fair enoguh when you've only got one to deal with, but by the time the turkey that was Batman and Robim arrived you had two new villains backstories to tell (and Arnie demanded an awful lot of screen time) don't you think if the bad guys lived to fight another day the battles between good and evil would mean a little more? I've yet to see the new Batman, but the focus isn't so much on the villains here anyway, is it? As it's more about Batman's beginning (funny that)
Maybe it's just me. Being a second child, I always had to play the bad guys. I had the decepticons. Skeletor and his crew. In play, I'd want them to get away, even if I didn't actually want my evil plots to succeed...
Doesn't it make more sense to let evil live to fight another day though? Learning the strengths and weaknesses, creating even greater battles? It's odd, especially in super-hero type movies where they like to leave it open for a sequel, that t's not through the nemesis? Does it say something about the world we live in today that evil has to be defeated? Must good always triumph in every single aspect? Can today's movie going public not live with the idea of the bad guy getting away, even if to make his downfall greater in the long run?
Page:
True but then again Diamonds are Forever was never exactly 'serious'. Some of Moore's movies were infact quite nasty:
For Your Eyes Only traded a lot of the humour for some serious violence, (like the bit at the end with the crossbow, no joke - guy just gets shot in the chest and falls off a cliff) and of course View to a Kill had the mine massacre which was a very strong scene to get away with in a PG rated movie.
For Your Eyes Only traded a lot of the humour for some serious violence, (like the bit at the end with the crossbow, no joke - guy just gets shot in the chest and falls off a cliff) and of course View to a Kill had the mine massacre which was a very strong scene to get away with in a PG rated movie.
True. And Dalton brought back the seriousness and some darker elelments that Moore lacked with his flippant sexual jokes and feeble one liners, which were even more obvious in License to Kill.
Goldneye was great, but if you look at it closely it really is just a collection of action sequences strung together. This is probably why it was so easy to make into a decent game as it was all action.
Nothing will ever top The Living Daylights for ticking every single thing in the Bond fan's bible needed to make a great Bond movie.
Nothing will ever top The Living Daylights for ticking every single thing in the Bond fan's bible needed to make a great Bond movie.
Villains are always infinitely more interesting than the heroes. I always preferred the Joker to Batman, Goldfinger to Bond etc. They should get themselves a union.
I hope Casino Royale goes back to grass roots and shows us some quality Bond that doesn't rely on pathetic "special" effects and stupid gadgets like invisible cars.. At least they've gotten rid of that pratt Tamahori from Die Another Day and hired Martin Campbell who gave us the semi decent Goldeneye. And most of all, the new Bond better not be a Yank.
Also Tomorrow Never Dies (think it was that one - the one with the media guy and the stealth boat) has quite a few nods to Thunderball in it.
The Russians used to make good bad guys too. The Living Daylights and Goldeneye wouldn't have been as good without loads of russians with kalashnikovs trying to kill Bond.
Well Meka I do agree on you with the regards to SPECTRE, however it would be impossible for it still to exist today - because it would be illegal.
Another chap (Kevin McClory) brought Fleming to court over the rights to Thunderball and the character of Blofeld and the SPECTRE organisation.
McClory won his claim maintaining he had created Blofeld and SPECTRE and the court upheld his right to disallow United Artists, MGM, EON and the Bond franchise from ever mentioning SPECTRE or Blofeld again. Thunderball was actually to be the first Bond film but legal wrangles prevented this. By the time of the court decision a few Bond films with Blofeld in them had been created, but at the start of For Your Eyes Only, Bond kills a villain who is supposed to represent Blofeld in the pre credit opening, which as well as tying up any loose ends it was Albert R Broccoli's jibe at McClory, telling him that 007's success did not depend on SPECTRE.
And while I'm on the topic this is where Never Say Never Again came from in 1983, it was McClory's attempt on a Bond film which was, in essence, a remake of Thunderball. (The settlement with Fleming stipulated McClory could make a Bond film but it had to be a remake of Thunderball)
Another chap (Kevin McClory) brought Fleming to court over the rights to Thunderball and the character of Blofeld and the SPECTRE organisation.
McClory won his claim maintaining he had created Blofeld and SPECTRE and the court upheld his right to disallow United Artists, MGM, EON and the Bond franchise from ever mentioning SPECTRE or Blofeld again. Thunderball was actually to be the first Bond film but legal wrangles prevented this. By the time of the court decision a few Bond films with Blofeld in them had been created, but at the start of For Your Eyes Only, Bond kills a villain who is supposed to represent Blofeld in the pre credit opening, which as well as tying up any loose ends it was Albert R Broccoli's jibe at McClory, telling him that 007's success did not depend on SPECTRE.
And while I'm on the topic this is where Never Say Never Again came from in 1983, it was McClory's attempt on a Bond film which was, in essence, a remake of Thunderball. (The settlement with Fleming stipulated McClory could make a Bond film but it had to be a remake of Thunderball)
Bond was better when he had Blofeld to deal with, and the threat of SPECTRE. Blofeld and his organisation had time to develop over a number of movies, and we knew what the threat was right away. Yeah there were all of the sub-divisions and plots he had to deal with - eg Goldfinger, but at least it was a proper threat. The worst recent example would have to be Tomorrow Never Dies, when our villain is a media chap. Ooh, scary. I can't help but think that the quality of the Bond movies would improve if SPECTRE still existed, sometihng consistent to tie the films together.
If you want to really see the problem with multiple villians though, with a new one for each movie, look no further than Star Wars. Darth Vader. Bad Guy in the first movie, gets blasted off into space. But he's okay, and back in the second, when we learn that he's actually Luke's father! Then in the third, there's redemption. What an arc! What a villain!
New movies, Darth Maul looks like he could be a fantastic villain for the trilogy. But he dies at the end of the first movie. Damn. But that's okay, because we've got Count Dooku (albeit in a rather confused role) he's bound to play a significant part in the next two movies. Yes, and he lives through the second. Only to die in the first scenes of the third movie. When we get General Grevious. A coughing robot. Where the hell did he come from? Oh, a cartoon series. Great. But if you haven't seen it it's just another bad guy with no past, no story, just a plotsticle.
I watched the X-Men the other day. The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is a fascinating aspect of the series. Whilst they have to work together in the second, it seems they'll be enemies again later on. What's more, a Magneto prequel is planned. So he has a backstory, and more importantly, he has a future.
One of the failing of the Batman series of the 90's was its constant killing of its bad guys. Fair enoguh when you've only got one to deal with, but by the time the turkey that was Batman and Robim arrived you had two new villains backstories to tell (and Arnie demanded an awful lot of screen time) don't you think if the bad guys lived to fight another day the battles between good and evil would mean a little more? I've yet to see the new Batman, but the focus isn't so much on the villains here anyway, is it? As it's more about Batman's beginning (funny that)
Maybe it's just me. Being a second child, I always had to play the bad guys. I had the decepticons. Skeletor and his crew. In play, I'd want them to get away, even if I didn't actually want my evil plots to succeed...
Doesn't it make more sense to let evil live to fight another day though? Learning the strengths and weaknesses, creating even greater battles? It's odd, especially in super-hero type movies where they like to leave it open for a sequel, that t's not through the nemesis? Does it say something about the world we live in today that evil has to be defeated? Must good always triumph in every single aspect? Can today's movie going public not live with the idea of the bad guy getting away, even if to make his downfall greater in the long run?
If you want to really see the problem with multiple villians though, with a new one for each movie, look no further than Star Wars. Darth Vader. Bad Guy in the first movie, gets blasted off into space. But he's okay, and back in the second, when we learn that he's actually Luke's father! Then in the third, there's redemption. What an arc! What a villain!
New movies, Darth Maul looks like he could be a fantastic villain for the trilogy. But he dies at the end of the first movie. Damn. But that's okay, because we've got Count Dooku (albeit in a rather confused role) he's bound to play a significant part in the next two movies. Yes, and he lives through the second. Only to die in the first scenes of the third movie. When we get General Grevious. A coughing robot. Where the hell did he come from? Oh, a cartoon series. Great. But if you haven't seen it it's just another bad guy with no past, no story, just a plotsticle.
I watched the X-Men the other day. The relationship between Professor X and Magneto is a fascinating aspect of the series. Whilst they have to work together in the second, it seems they'll be enemies again later on. What's more, a Magneto prequel is planned. So he has a backstory, and more importantly, he has a future.
One of the failing of the Batman series of the 90's was its constant killing of its bad guys. Fair enoguh when you've only got one to deal with, but by the time the turkey that was Batman and Robim arrived you had two new villains backstories to tell (and Arnie demanded an awful lot of screen time) don't you think if the bad guys lived to fight another day the battles between good and evil would mean a little more? I've yet to see the new Batman, but the focus isn't so much on the villains here anyway, is it? As it's more about Batman's beginning (funny that)
Maybe it's just me. Being a second child, I always had to play the bad guys. I had the decepticons. Skeletor and his crew. In play, I'd want them to get away, even if I didn't actually want my evil plots to succeed...
Doesn't it make more sense to let evil live to fight another day though? Learning the strengths and weaknesses, creating even greater battles? It's odd, especially in super-hero type movies where they like to leave it open for a sequel, that t's not through the nemesis? Does it say something about the world we live in today that evil has to be defeated? Must good always triumph in every single aspect? Can today's movie going public not live with the idea of the bad guy getting away, even if to make his downfall greater in the long run?
Page: