Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Bond

MattMatt Posts: 4,455
Just for the @Shroud68:

Connery had that physical presence as Bond along with the charm. You could tell he had the physical chops to fight

Lazenby is tough to note what he brought; only one time in the role & they tried to mimick Connery's version down to the hair cut

Moore brought more humor to the role. The dry wit was really dialed up

Dalton brought a seriousness, almost tormented version

Bronsan emulated the charm, physical presence, had the dry wit & humor, could play a tormented Bond. He also had that cavalier attitude that Connery used, but Bronsan was more believable.

Side note: Craig's Bond is a whole other animal. His Bond is probably the best. I believe this version more then all the previous actors.

M
«1345

Comments

  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    edited October 2013
    I am so at odds with so many of your perspectives on other things( the way you try to snake out of lost bets in particular) that I am loathe to agree with you but in this instance I agree with much of this.

    I was one of the 1985 fan boys screaming for Brosnan to replace Moore. Was the final disappointing season Remington Steele worth keeping Brosnan away for 9 years? Twenty five years later I say Yes. Dalton' s Bond is so underrated. There is no better pre-title sequence than Daylights and he bought that tormented Bond to Kill.

    Brosnan's Goldeneye was so refreshing after no Bond for 5 years or so and the fact that he was a good as advertised.

    I will finish this post later. Have to play Mr. Mom.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    I don't think they ( the producers) tried to have Lazenby mimic Connery. I just think he was so overmatched and ill prepared that he had no choice but to fall back on a bad Connery impression. That being said, what a waste of a script, score and supporting cast. Rigg, in particular, is in a class by herself as a Bond girl. If the plot did not elevate her, her sheer presence did as well. Service is the biggest What If of the series certainly more so than James Brolin's screen test.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    edited October 2013
    Moore's lack of physicality and heavier use of humor stands alone. His highs were the highest and his lows were the dregs of the franchise. I see no Moore in Brosnan, even the really bad puns, Brosnan seemed to be in pain saying them while Moore reveled in it.

    I too find it hard to see Craig in any of the previous Bonds( or vice versa ) He seems very much a brand new creation, a new character rather than a different actor. 7 years from now can we envision Matt Bomer trying to fill Craig's shoes? Why even bother.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,455
    shroud68 said:

    I am so at odds with so many of your perspectives on other things( the way you try to snake out of lost bets in particular) that I am loathe to agree with you but in this instance I agree with much of this.

    I was one of the 1985 fan boys screaming for Brosnan to replace Moore. Was the final disappointing season Remington Steele worth keeping Brosnan away for 9 years? Twenty five years later I say Yes. Dalton' s Bond is so underrated. There is no better pre-title sequence than Daylights and he bought that tormented Bond to Kill.

    Brosnan's Goldeneye was so refreshing after no Bond for 5 years or so and the fact that he was a good as advertised.

    I will finish this post later. Have to play Mr. Mom.

    You're right about Lazenby. His line in the opening teaser "this never happened to the other guy" came from Lazenby saying that throughout the production of the film.

    I don't know about Bronsan & the humor. I felt some of his humorous lines came across more childish ("...comes from not growing up.") Of course, that could be me seeing how I insert humor as levity into stressful situations (my wife will vouch for me based on the hospital delivery of our daughter!)

    As for betting methods:
    1.) liberties only vary for 3 specific guys
    2.) they take the same type of liberties
    3.) I don't recall ever relaying how that came to a conclusion

    M
  • shroud68 said:


    I too find it hard to see Craig in any of the previous Bonds( or vice versa ) He seems very much a brand new creation, a new character rather than a different actor. 7 years from now can we envision Matt Bomer trying to fill Craig's shoes? Why even bother.

    Why Bomer? Now I have to imagine him as Bond and its awful.

    For the record I don't think that any of the Bond's were bad, all were very much a product of their time, and if Dalton had had the chance to do Goldeneye he would have been much better revered. Lets face it, Brosnan's other outings were definitely not better than Licensed to Kill. (Though Die Another Day is probably my favorite of the ridiculous Bond movies).
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,455

    shroud68 said:


    I too find it hard to see Craig in any of the previous Bonds( or vice versa ) He seems very much a brand new creation, a new character rather than a different actor. 7 years from now can we envision Matt Bomer trying to fill Craig's shoes? Why even bother.

    Why Bomer? Now I have to imagine him as Bond and its awful.

    For the record I don't think that any of the Bond's were bad, all were very much a product of their time, and if Dalton had had the chance to do Goldeneye he would have been much better revered. Lets face it, Brosnan's other outings were definitely not better than Licensed to Kill. (Though Die Another Day is probably my favorite of the ridiculous Bond movies).
    Actually, everytime I watch Licence to Kill & Living Daylights I think about how cool it would've been if Bronsan starred. GoldenEye was definitely my favorite Bronsan movie...and that was written for Dalton.

    M
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    edited October 2013

    shroud68 said:


    I too find it hard to see Craig in any of the previous Bonds( or vice versa ) He seems very much a brand new creation, a new character rather than a different actor. 7 years from now can we envision Matt Bomer trying to fill Craig's shoes? Why even bother.

    Why Bomer? Now I have to imagine him as Bond and its awful.

    For the record I don't think that any of the Bond's were bad, all were very much a product of their time, and if Dalton had had the chance to do Goldeneye he would have been much better revered. Lets face it, Brosnan's other outings were definitely not better than Licensed to Kill. (Though Die Another Day is probably my favorite of the ridiculous Bond movies).
    Bomer was just name of a late 20's actor who by the end of Craig's run would probably be a candidate. Could have easily said Matt Smith or James Garfield.

    As far as LTK being better than the last three Brosnan's, I think other than Dr Christmas the nuclear scientist, The World Is Not Enough was pretty good. Die Another Day & Tomorrow Never Dies are
    pretty bad, certainly bottom third of the series.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    Matt said:

    shroud68 said:


    I too find it hard to see Craig in any of the previous Bonds( or vice versa ) He seems very much a brand new creation, a new character rather than a different actor. 7 years from now can we envision Matt Bomer trying to fill Craig's shoes? Why even bother.

    Why Bomer? Now I have to imagine him as Bond and its awful.

    For the record I don't think that any of the Bond's were bad, all were very much a product of their time, and if Dalton had had the chance to do Goldeneye he would have been much better revered. Lets face it, Brosnan's other outings were definitely not better than Licensed to Kill. (Though Die Another Day is probably my favorite of the ridiculous Bond movies).
    Actually, everytime I watch Licence to Kill & Living Daylights I think about how cool it would've been if Bronsan starred. GoldenEye was definitely my favorite Bronsan movie...and that was written for Dalton.

    M
    While I like Goldeneye as is, I wish Dalton had done more. Lose A View To a Kill and start Dalton in 86. Give me a Bond movie in 1992 as the Cold War fades and then Brosnan. But that is alternative history.
  • shroud68 said:


    Bomer was just name of a late 20's actor who by the end of Craig's run would probably be a candidate. Could have easily said Matt Smith or James Garfield.

    As far as LTK being better than the last three Brosnan's, I think other than Dr Christmas the nuclear scientist, The World Is Not Enough was pretty good. Die Another Day & Tomorrow Never Dies are
    pretty bad, certainly bottom third of the series.

    On a side note, you know Matt Bomer is 36? I know! Crazy! But I guess in hollywood man years that's 27. (In woman years it's practically dead).
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    Moore's Bond movies are what the term "hit or miss" is defined by. I love Live and let Die and The Spy who Loved Me. Moon Raker and A View to a Kill are just awful.

    Dalton was probably a victim of being Bond during the 1980's and the movies coming across as 80's movies. Movies that are not really great but are still enjoyable that if you see it on tv, you stop to watch.

    Bronsan was good but i often felt that everything around him ranged from absurd to awful. (plot, dialogue, costars). Tomorrow Never Dies is a guilty pleasure movie.

    Craig is getting the benefit of the idea/trend that if we make a character darker it will make the character seem cool and add new life to the franchise. I guess it works. The films are making tons of money. I thought Casino was great, Quatom was forgettable, and Skyfall was good but the last 30 mins or so were over the top even for a Bond film.

    When I think of Bond, Connery is who first comes to mind. The films of course are dated and not as action oriented but they did set the bar for James Bond.

    I have only seen On Her Majesty Secret Service once and I enjoyed it.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    shroud68 said:


    Bomer was just name of a late 20's actor who by the end of Craig's run would probably be a candidate. Could have easily said Matt Smith or James Garfield.

    As far as LTK being better than the last three Brosnan's, I think other than Dr Christmas the nuclear scientist, The World Is Not Enough was pretty good. Die Another Day & Tomorrow Never Dies are
    pretty bad, certainly bottom third of the series.

    On a side note, you know Matt Bomer is 36? I know! Crazy! But I guess in hollywood man years that's 27. (In woman years it's practically dead).
    Oopps. I'm bad at guessing the age of homosexual TV leading men poised for superstardom. The fact that he'd be earlier 40's only strengthen the comparison as that was Moore's resume ( other than the gay part).
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    Moore's Bond movies are what the term "hit or miss" is defined by. I love Live and let Die and The Spy who Loved Me. Moon Raker and A View to a Kill are just awful.

    Dalton was probably a victim of being Bond during the 1980's and the movies coming across as 80's movies. Movies that are not really great but are still enjoyable that if you see it on tv, you stop to watch.

    Bronsan was good but i often felt that everything around him ranged from absurd to awful. (plot, dialogue, costars). Tomorrow Never Dies is a guilty pleasure movie.

    Craig is getting the benefit of the idea/trend that if we make a character darker it will make the character seem cool and add new life to the franchise. I guess it works. The films are making tons of money. I thought Casino was great, Quatom was forgettable, and Skyfall was good but the last 30 mins or so were over the top even for a Bond film.

    When I think of Bond, Connery is who first comes to mind. The films of course are dated and not as action oriented but they did set the bar for James Bond.

    I have only seen On Her Majesty Secret Service once and I enjoyed it.

    OHMSS holds up well and Lazenby is served well by time. Great point about Brosnan's supporting crew. He was great as Bond but especially in Die Another Day the plot, cast and fx were painfully weak. Madonna? Wind surfing?
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,455

    Moore's Bond movies are what the term "hit or miss" is defined by. I love Live and let Die and The Spy who Loved Me. Moon Raker and A View to a Kill are just awful.

    Dalton was probably a victim of being Bond during the 1980's and the movies coming across as 80's movies. Movies that are not really great but are still enjoyable that if you see it on tv, you stop to watch.

    Bronsan was good but i often felt that everything around him ranged from absurd to awful. (plot, dialogue, costars). Tomorrow Never Dies is a guilty pleasure movie.

    Craig is getting the benefit of the idea/trend that if we make a character darker it will make the character seem cool and add new life to the franchise. I guess it works. The films are making tons of money. I thought Casino was great, Quatom was forgettable, and Skyfall was good but the last 30 mins or so were over the top even for a Bond film.

    When I think of Bond, Connery is who first comes to mind. The films of course are dated and not as action oriented but they did set the bar for James Bond.

    I have only seen On Her Majesty Secret Service once and I enjoyed it.

    I see how people like to equate more realistic portrayals with darker interpretations. Nolan's Batman, MoS Superman, Craig's Bond, etc. I'd argue none of these are 'darker' takes on the characters, but more grounded.

    I've covered Nolan's Batman & MoS Superman in a lot of threads, so I'll skip to Craig's Bond. If you think about a career in espionage following a career in the navy, following growing up as an orphan, the character would have to be more out of most people's comfort zone.

    The best covert ops are those with crappy childhoods (easier to leave behind family & friends) & Bond grew up an orphan, much like Batman. In Craig's 3 movies, he's gone from a fledgling career where he fell in love & was backstabbed to being a bit past his prime. By Skyfall, he's basically burnt out & feeling the physical effects of a lengthy career.

    His more serious attitude really came through with Dalton ("...after all, he's not a Superman")

    The last 30 minutes reminded me of several episodes of Burn Notice. Interestingly enough, Jeffrey Donovan (who starred in the series) tweeted it was basically an extended episode of Burn Notice.

    M
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    Matt said:

    Moore's Bond movies are what the term "hit or miss" is defined by. I love Live and let Die and The Spy who Loved Me. Moon Raker and A View to a Kill are just awful.

    Dalton was probably a victim of being Bond during the 1980's and the movies coming across as 80's movies. Movies that are not really great but are still enjoyable that if you see it on tv, you stop to watch.

    Bronsan was good but i often felt that everything around him ranged from absurd to awful. (plot, dialogue, costars). Tomorrow Never Dies is a guilty pleasure movie.

    Craig is getting the benefit of the idea/trend that if we make a character darker it will make the character seem cool and add new life to the franchise. I guess it works. The films are making tons of money. I thought Casino was great, Quatom was forgettable, and Skyfall was good but the last 30 mins or so were over the top even for a Bond film.

    When I think of Bond, Connery is who first comes to mind. The films of course are dated and not as action oriented but they did set the bar for James Bond.

    I have only seen On Her Majesty Secret Service once and I enjoyed it.

    I see how people like to equate more realistic portrayals with darker interpretations. Nolan's Batman, MoS Superman, Craig's Bond, etc. I'd argue none of these are 'darker' takes on the characters, but more grounded.

    I've covered Nolan's Batman & MoS Superman in a lot of threads, so I'll skip to Craig's Bond. If you think about a career in espionage following a career in the navy, following growing up as an orphan, the character would have to be more out of most people's comfort zone.

    The best covert ops are those with crappy childhoods (easier to leave behind family & friends) & Bond grew up an orphan, much like Batman. In Craig's 3 movies, he's gone from a fledgling career where he fell in love & was backstabbed to being a bit past his prime. By Skyfall, he's basically burnt out & feeling the physical effects of a lengthy career.

    His more serious attitude really came through with Dalton ("...after all, he's not a Superman")

    The last 30 minutes reminded me of several episodes of Burn Notice. Interestingly enough, Jeffrey Donovan (who starred in the series) tweeted it was basically an extended episode of Burn Notice.

    M
    Skyfall was so widely praised that even I overlook the obvious flaws. It certainly is the best looking Bond film but shades of The Dark Knight and MacGyver really stick out. That being said the Bond series was always derivative of Hollywood trends but Skyfall is so very dark and moody. Emo Bond. I hope Casino Royale is remembered as Craig's best a few years from now.
  • I tend to catergorize Bond films (and all long running franchises for that matter) into 3 lists; Genuinely good, Bad, and Ridiculous. The last one, I generally hate the movie the first time I see it, but upon rewatching realize how crazy it all is and find things to love about it. Moonraker, A View to A Kill, and Die Another Day all fall into that catergory for me. Sometimes they are exactly what I'm in the mood for.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    The more grounded approach is usually truer to the original source material (the first Batman comics & the Bond novels). It is just hard for the long term fan to see an sudden change in tone after decades of the character being shown in a light hearted manner. (Batman from the 50's to Frank Miller & Bond through the Connery, Moore, and Bronsan years). For fans of Bond films who never read the books, Dalton and Craig look like a complete new darker version because all that was even known was the Bond with the jokes. I am not saying it is bad, just different. Bond had to change to stay revelant. It will be interesting to see how the next version of Bond is characterized. Does the pendulum start to swing back?
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    I'm 44 and grew up in a world where ABC played the new Bond movie on holidays. It was appointment viewing. In the past 15 years with the explosion of cable it is possible to watch a Bond a day. I don't mind the over exposure as I too pick and chose the parts I love. I do not categorize the series though, I just split it into thirds. The classics the good and the dregs. The top 10 will fluctuate but the bottom ones do not.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,455
    shroud68 said:

    Matt said:

    Moore's Bond movies are what the term "hit or miss" is defined by. I love Live and let Die and The Spy who Loved Me. Moon Raker and A View to a Kill are just awful.

    Dalton was probably a victim of being Bond during the 1980's and the movies coming across as 80's movies. Movies that are not really great but are still enjoyable that if you see it on tv, you stop to watch.

    Bronsan was good but i often felt that everything around him ranged from absurd to awful. (plot, dialogue, costars). Tomorrow Never Dies is a guilty pleasure movie.

    Craig is getting the benefit of the idea/trend that if we make a character darker it will make the character seem cool and add new life to the franchise. I guess it works. The films are making tons of money. I thought Casino was great, Quatom was forgettable, and Skyfall was good but the last 30 mins or so were over the top even for a Bond film.

    When I think of Bond, Connery is who first comes to mind. The films of course are dated and not as action oriented but they did set the bar for James Bond.

    I have only seen On Her Majesty Secret Service once and I enjoyed it.

    I see how people like to equate more realistic portrayals with darker interpretations. Nolan's Batman, MoS Superman, Craig's Bond, etc. I'd argue none of these are 'darker' takes on the characters, but more grounded.

    I've covered Nolan's Batman & MoS Superman in a lot of threads, so I'll skip to Craig's Bond. If you think about a career in espionage following a career in the navy, following growing up as an orphan, the character would have to be more out of most people's comfort zone.

    The best covert ops are those with crappy childhoods (easier to leave behind family & friends) & Bond grew up an orphan, much like Batman. In Craig's 3 movies, he's gone from a fledgling career where he fell in love & was backstabbed to being a bit past his prime. By Skyfall, he's basically burnt out & feeling the physical effects of a lengthy career.

    His more serious attitude really came through with Dalton ("...after all, he's not a Superman")

    The last 30 minutes reminded me of several episodes of Burn Notice. Interestingly enough, Jeffrey Donovan (who starred in the series) tweeted it was basically an extended episode of Burn Notice.

    M
    Skyfall was so widely praised that even I overlook the obvious flaws. It certainly is the best looking Bond film but shades of The Dark Knight and MacGyver really stick out. That being said the Bond series was always derivative of Hollywood trends but Skyfall is so very dark and moody. Emo Bond. I hope Casino Royale is remembered as Craig's best a few years from now.
    Yeah, that whole 'villain getting caught to be a Trojan horse' bit really seemed to mirror TDK. I'm torn here with Craig's movies. CR felt like the Fleming books & the early Bond films (I'm aware those were based on the books). QoS was interesting, but I recall after it was over, telling Jamie D it was going to be the last Bond movie I see in theaters. Skyfall, however, knocked my socks off. It seemed to have the spy stuff, getting older bits (something I've been relating to lately), and action.

    Just as QoS almost killed my interest, Skyfall brought it back.

    M
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited October 2013
    shroud68 said:

    I do not categorize the series though, I just split it into thirds. The classics the good and the dregs. The top 10 will fluctuate but the bottom ones do not.

    To be honest, if you just had the top 10 (whatever those may be) that is all you really need. Most people would have one or two from every Bond era and a extra pick from their favorite Bond.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    Matt said:

    shroud68 said:

    Matt said:

    Moore's Bond movies are what the term "hit or miss" is defined by. I love Live and let Die and The Spy who Loved Me. Moon Raker and A View to a Kill are just awful.

    Dalton was probably a victim of being Bond during the 1980's and the movies coming across as 80's movies. Movies that are not really great but are still enjoyable that if you see it on tv, you stop to watch.

    Bronsan was good but i often felt that everything around him ranged from absurd to awful. (plot, dialogue, costars). Tomorrow Never Dies is a guilty pleasure movie.

    Craig is getting the benefit of the idea/trend that if we make a character darker it will make the character seem cool and add new life to the franchise. I guess it works. The films are making tons of money. I thought Casino was great, Quatom was forgettable, and Skyfall was good but the last 30 mins or so were over the top even for a Bond film.

    When I think of Bond, Connery is who first comes to mind. The films of course are dated and not as action oriented but they did set the bar for James Bond.

    I have only seen On Her Majesty Secret Service once and I enjoyed it.

    I see how people like to equate more realistic portrayals with darker interpretations. Nolan's Batman, MoS Superman, Craig's Bond, etc. I'd argue none of these are 'darker' takes on the characters, but more grounded.

    I've covered Nolan's Batman & MoS Superman in a lot of threads, so I'll skip to Craig's Bond. If you think about a career in espionage following a career in the navy, following growing up as an orphan, the character would have to be more out of most people's comfort zone.

    The best covert ops are those with crappy childhoods (easier to leave behind family & friends) & Bond grew up an orphan, much like Batman. In Craig's 3 movies, he's gone from a fledgling career where he fell in love & was backstabbed to being a bit past his prime. By Skyfall, he's basically burnt out & feeling the physical effects of a lengthy career.

    His more serious attitude really came through with Dalton ("...after all, he's not a Superman")

    The last 30 minutes reminded me of several episodes of Burn Notice. Interestingly enough, Jeffrey Donovan (who starred in the series) tweeted it was basically an extended episode of Burn Notice.

    M
    Skyfall was so widely praised that even I overlook the obvious flaws. It certainly is the best looking Bond film but shades of The Dark Knight and MacGyver really stick out. That being said the Bond series was always derivative of Hollywood trends but Skyfall is so very dark and moody. Emo Bond. I hope Casino Royale is remembered as Craig's best a few years from now.
    Yeah, that whole 'villain getting caught to be a Trojan horse' bit really seemed to mirror TDK. I'm torn here with Craig's movies. CR felt like the Fleming books & the early Bond films (I'm aware those were based on the books). QoS was interesting, but I recall after it was over, telling Jamie D it was going to be the last Bond movie I see in theaters. Skyfall, however, knocked my socks off. It seemed to have the spy stuff, getting older bits (something I've been relating to lately), and action.

    Just as QoS almost killed my interest, Skyfall brought it back.

    M
    The thing with the original source material is that very little in any Bond movie came from the books. Trying to find more than a plot point or two at times is hard. Most are unreadable today unlike say a Graham Greene spy book.

    I liked Skyfall very much but it did not feel like a Bond movie. M should be a boss not a plot point. Craig is so fucking humorless that the series is becoming more and more remote from what I grew up loving.
  • playdohsrepublicplaydohsrepublic Posts: 1,377
    edited October 2013
    shroud68 said:



    The thing with the original source material is that very little in any Bond movie came from the books. Trying to find more than a plot point or two at times is hard. Most are unreadable today unlike say a Graham Greene spy book.

    I liked Skyfall very much but it did not feel like a Bond movie. M should be a boss not a plot point. Craig is so fucking humorless that the series is becoming more and more remote from what I grew up loving.

    Oh I disagree. I love the Fleming novels. They have a pulpy charm to them. And most of the Connery movies were pretty straight forward adaptations of the books they were based on. Casino Royale, from the moment he steps into the casino also sticks fairly close to the plot of the book. And I think if they were going to hand off M to a new actor, they couldn't have done it better. Craig is one stoic muther though. We can agree on that. One quip per movie really wouldn't hurt. "I think he got the point." Anyone, anyone?

  • MattMatt Posts: 4,455
    I've been thinking more about this. I think if you could tweak the Thomas Crowne Affair it could be a Bond movie. With Bronsan being great in the remake, I think it shows with a good script & story, he could be a better Bond then some of Bronsan's movie showed.

    M
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    shroud68 said:



    The thing with the original source material is that very little in any Bond movie came from the books. Trying to find more than a plot point or two at times is hard. Most are unreadable today unlike say a Graham Greene spy book.

    I liked Skyfall very much but it did not feel like a Bond movie. M should be a boss not a plot point. Craig is so fucking humorless that the series is becoming more and more remote from what I grew up loving.

    Oh I disagree. I love the Fleming novels. They have a pulpy charm to them. And most of the Connery movies were pretty straight forward adaptations of the books they were based on. Casino Royale, from the moment he steps into the casino also sticks fairly close to the plot of the book. And I think if they were going to hand off M to a new actor, they couldn't have done it better. Craig is one stoic muther though. We can agree on that. One quip per movie really wouldn't hurt. "I think he got the point." Anyone, anyone?

    shroud68 said:



    The thing with the original source material is that very little in any Bond movie came from the books. Trying to find more than a plot point or two at times is hard. Most are unreadable today unlike say a Graham Greene spy book.

    I liked Skyfall very much but it did not feel like a Bond movie. M should be a boss not a plot point. Craig is so fucking humorless that the series is becoming more and more remote from what I grew up loving.

    Oh I disagree. I love the Fleming novels. They have a pulpy charm to them. And most of the Connery movies were pretty straight forward adaptations of the books they were based on. Casino Royale, from the moment he steps into the casino also sticks fairly close to the plot of the book. And I think if they were going to hand off M to a new actor, they couldn't have done it better. Craig is one stoic muther though. We can agree on that. One quip per movie really wouldn't hurt. "I think he got the point." Anyone, anyone?

    shroud68 said:



    The thing with the original source material is that very little in any Bond movie came from the books. Trying to find more than a plot point or two at times is hard. Most are unreadable today unlike say a Graham Greene spy book.

    I liked Skyfall very much but it did not feel like a Bond movie. M should be a boss not a plot point. Craig is so fucking humorless that the series is becoming more and more remote from what I grew up loving.

    Oh I disagree. I love the Fleming novels. They have a pulpy charm to them. And most of the Connery movies were pretty straight forward adaptations of the books they were based on. Casino Royale, from the moment he steps into the casino also sticks fairly close to the plot of the book. And I think if they were going to hand off M to a new actor, they couldn't have done it better. Craig is one stoic muther though. We can agree on that. One quip per movie really wouldn't hurt. "I think he got the point." Anyone, anyone?

    Casino Royaleis an exception but I can give you a lot of variances along the way. And in no way would I categorize Fleming as Pulp. It started out with high aspirations nor quite as lurid as Pulp often is. It may have become pulp but I can't see it as such.

    I have no issue with Dench and certainly none with Fiennes. I just think Bond was a supporting player in Skyfall and it took away from the franchise though the film itself is great.

    Craig is so grim. I'd kill for some 70's cheese from Moore.
  • playdohsrepublicplaydohsrepublic Posts: 1,377
    edited October 2013
    shroud68 said:


    Casino Royaleis an exception but I can give you a lot of variances along the way. And in no way would I categorize Fleming as Pulp. It started out with high aspirations nor quite as lurid as Pulp often is. It may have become pulp but I can't see it as such.

    I have no issue with Dench and certainly none with Fiennes. I just think Bond was a supporting player in Skyfall and it took away from the franchise though the film itself is great.

    Craig is so grim. I'd kill for some 70's cheese from Moore.

    I'd say Dr. No through On Her Majesty's Secret Service were all servicable adaptations. Most of the alterations made were to accomodate the alternate sequence of events from the book continuity, shoehorn SPECTRE into stories that didn't feature them and just plain ol' book to film adaptation corruption. Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die were more or less "inspired by" and after that the movies were adaptations in name only, with the exception of Skyfall. Ironically Licensed to Kill was the first not to use a Fleming title and stole much of its plot from Live and Let Die.

    In the traditional sense, I agree, Bond was not pulp. I was refering to the tawdry men's magazine undercurrent the books had. It was all very sensationalized, heavily focused on action, adventure, sex, luxury in the form of cigars and gambling and expensive cars, and casual misogyny. The villians were almost always deformed egomaniacs and/or sexual perverts and Bond was an unkillable man's man, a debonaire ladies man and a brutally efficient tough guy killer when the situation called for it. I think it was a lot closer in spirit to pulp than, say, Le Carre's spy fiction.
  • jaydee74jaydee74 Posts: 1,525
    I grew up with Roger Moore and the wit he brought to the movies. As much as I liked him in the role, Connery was amazing. I also very much enjoyed Dalton in the role. Especially his first role. I enjoy all of the actors who played Bond and all for different reasons.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    shroud68 said:


    Casino Royaleis an exception but I can give you a lot of variances along the way. And in no way would I categorize Fleming as Pulp. It started out with high aspirations nor quite as lurid as Pulp often is. It may have become pulp but I can't see it as such.

    I have no issue with Dench and certainly none with Fiennes. I just think Bond was a supporting player in Skyfall and it took away from the franchise though the film itself is great.

    Craig is so grim. I'd kill for some 70's cheese from Moore.

    I'd say Dr. No through On Her Majesty's Secret Service were all servicable adaptations. Most of the alterations made were to accomodate the alternate sequence of events from the book continuity, shoehorn SPECTRE into stories that didn't feature them and just plain ol' book to film adaptation corruption. Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die were more or less "inspired by" and after that the movies were adaptations in name only, with the exception of Skyfall. Ironically Licensed to Kill was the first not to use a Fleming title and stole much of its plot from Live and Let Die.

    In the traditional sense, I agree, Bond was not pulp. I was refering to the tawdry men's magazine undercurrent the books had. It was all very sensationalized, heavily focused on action, adventure, sex, luxury in the form of cigars and gambling and expensive cars, and casual misogyny. The villians were almost always deformed egomaniacs and/or sexual perverts and Bond was an unkillable man's man, a debonaire ladies man and a brutally efficient tough guy killer when the situation called for it. I think it was a lot closer in spirit to pulp than, say, Le Carre's spy fiction.
    I agree that the end result feels much like Pulp. 100 years from now Bond will be a name like Sherlock Holmes, forever associated with everything but the source material.

    I'm in the middle of the new Bond novel Solo. It is a good reproduction of Fleming. Disfigured bad guy , exquisite details of Bond's bachelor lifestyle and grittier realistic violence not associated with the films before Craig.
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457
    jaydee74 said:

    I grew up with Roger Moore and the wit he brought to the movies. As much as I liked him in the role, Connery was amazing. I also very much enjoyed Dalton in the role. Especially his first role. I enjoy all of the actors who played Bond and all for different reasons.

    That's the way I look at it. I have a love for the portrayals of each actor. Sometime the movie works like OHMSS. Sometimes the portrayal works like From Russia with Love. . Sometimes it hits the right groove like The Spy Who Loved Me. I stop categorizing Bonds after countless debates like this.
  • I went through the Bond movies a few years ago, and I actually read most of the books before seeing a single movie. The Connery ones are fantastic, event the one after OHMSS, and Lazenby did a good job with an atypical Bond script.

    Moore's movies are unwatchable. Mired in slapstick self-parody, redneck southern sheriffs that seemingly had to be in every 70's movie, his inability to quit smirking, and action sequences that he was simply too old to be credible in. Hated them. ALL of them. I know people here are saying they had a dry wit, but no, they had puns that make you wince and Moore seemed as if he was laughing at the audience for paying money to see the movies.

    As for Casino Royale, it's funny how people say "the franchise went darker because of modern times" when it is the best adaptation of one of the novels since OHMSS. The books ARE dark. Bond is often described in the same way you would talk about a sociopath. He was a weapon. You point him at the adversary and tell him to eliminate it. Daniel Craig brings that to life, and I loved his first and third movies...Quantum of Solace needed to be re-edited so that they story flowed better.

    YMV
  • shroud68shroud68 Posts: 457

    I went through the Bond movies a few years ago, and I actually read most of the books before seeing a single movie. The Connery ones are fantastic, event the one after OHMSS, and Lazenby did a good job with an atypical Bond script.

    Moore's movies are unwatchable. Mired in slapstick self-parody, redneck southern sheriffs that seemingly had to be in every 70's movie, his inability to quit smirking, and action sequences that he was simply too old to be credible in. Hated them. ALL of them. I know people here are saying they had a dry wit, but no, they had puns that make you wince and Moore seemed as if he was laughing at the audience for paying money to see the movies.

    As for Casino Royale, it's funny how people say "the franchise went darker because of modern times" when it is the best adaptation of one of the novels since OHMSS. The books ARE dark. Bond is often described in the same way you would talk about a sociopath. He was a weapon. You point him at the adversary and tell him to eliminate it. Daniel Craig brings that to life, and I loved his first and third movies...Quantum of Solace needed to be re-edited so that they story flowed better.

    YMV

    To each his own but to call Spy Who Loved Me unwatchable and Diamonds Are Forever fantastic is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Where is the Diagree button when it is really important?
  • shroud68 said:


    To each his own but to call Spy Who Loved Me unwatchable and Diamonds Are Forever fantastic is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Where is the Diagree button when it is really important?

    Diamonds are Forever is one of the worst Bond movies, easily a bottom 5. Connery was too old and too bored for the role and the plot was hackeneyed to say the least. TSWLM was Moore's best outing, and while I'm not a huge fan of his era I think For Your Eyes Only is underrated, both are better than Diamonds. While we are at it I might as well say that I love Moonraker, Man with the Golden Gun and View to a Kill because they are all so ridiculous. Like loving Adam West Batman. Live and Let Die is on my bottom 5 list, as is Octopussy, which is on there for being completely unmemorable. I've seen it 2-3 times and the only scene I remember is the saw-blade yoyo.
Sign In or Register to comment.