Bond
Matt
Posts: 4,457
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
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
Comments
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.
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.
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
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).
M
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.
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'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
Just as QoS almost killed my interest, Skyfall brought it back.
M
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.
M
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.
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'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.
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