Mine is light and L from death note . They were potrayed as some kinda of super genius characters but in reality it felt like every other characters shared one braincell and light and L were average .
EDIT : I have come to the conclusion that so may of lemmings didn’t get what my post was about . I don’t care if a charecter is an asshole or isn’t very good in other aspects of their life.
James Bond
While he’s not exactly potrayed as super genious, he’s still supposed to be an extremely compenet secret agent yet the only thing he seems competent at is having an extremely good luck. The only reason he’s still alive is because the villains don’t kill him the first moment they get the chance but instead they always need to deliver this monoloque before executing him which is what causes him to then eventually get away and kill you instead.
Like how many of the movies start by him just naively walking into the enemy compound armed with pistol and wearing a suit while practising zero stealth and then getting caught by NPC security guard. If this is how you operate then how the fuck havent you been killed already?
The novels were way better than the movies except for a few of the early movies that followed the novels closely. The other movies were crap.
I agree, but having watched all Bond movies recently. Early movies Bond is a rapist. It ruined the whole two first films for me. And on top of that, the fight scenes are goofy and badly choreographed. As they progress, Bond transitions to a less rapey vibe into more of a Casanova, and the action scenes gain budget, the fight scenes increase in quality significantly and the plot morphs into the stereotypical spy superagent clichés we know today. The misogyny doesn’t go away until the Daniel Craig era though.
Maybe you’re right, I’ve never been into the movies much much. You might be remembering ones that I’ve forgotten or didn’t see.
I marathoned the Bond films years ago, and what really struck me was the Bond film transition. In the early films, he relies heavily on the arency network, frequently with other agents bailing him out. He’s not so much a super-spy, as he is a good field agent with an excellent support network. Over the course of the generations, he becomes more of a one-man army, culminating (in my mind) with Bond driving a tank through the streets of Moscow. Casino Royal helped bring that back a bit, but by then it was too late, and the enornous success of The Bourne Identity pretty much cemented the army-of-one tone.
I think GP misses the point: they’re comparing Bond to Bourne. Bond was not originally an “off-the-grid” assassin. He was a field agent, working with local resources to gather intel. Heck, even the climaxes were usually a coordinated assault with friendly troops; it just happens Bond gets to always fight and finish the bad guy, a satisfying conceit - but it was never Bond storming the stronghold and single-handedly defeating an army.
Not to mention, he’s the most unreliable agent when it comes to his susceptibility to honeypots…