What's interesting is that so many people say they like the Daniel Craig ones now because they're grittier and more violent, but those were the same things that turned a lot of people off during Dalton's two films. Times and tastes change, I suppose... makes me wonder how well he'd be accepted as Bond if 1987 Timothy Dalton could take the role today.
Funny thing about Moore, though... even though a lot of his era is looked down upon in some circles, when I started talking to people about reading the books and rewatching the movies (or watching for the first time, in some cases), a lot of my friends started talking to me about how much they loved Roger Moore. Probably because he was Bond when we were kids and his movies seemed to be on TV (like on ABC or TBS) a lot more often than any of the others' were, but whatever the reason, he's their Bond.
Great analysis. Moore obviously dominated the pre-cable era of television so people 35 years and older were exposed mostly to him. I cannot tell you how often I saw the Golden Gun & Live and Let Die. It was not until college that I remember seeing Russia with Love in a retro theater( can't think of the right word). Dalton's Bond seemed grittier in a change with the times but he just seemed humorless. I rank License in my Top Ten and the teaser in Daylights is well done and easily my favorite opening of the entire run. Dalton got a bad deal.
What's interesting is that so many people say they like the Daniel Craig ones now because they're grittier and more violent, but those were the same things that turned a lot of people off during Dalton's two films. Times and tastes change, I suppose... makes me wonder how well he'd be accepted as Bond if 1987 Timothy Dalton could take the role today.
Funny thing about Moore, though... even though a lot of his era is looked down upon in some circles, when I started talking to people about reading the books and rewatching the movies (or watching for the first time, in some cases), a lot of my friends started talking to me about how much they loved Roger Moore. Probably because he was Bond when we were kids and his movies seemed to be on TV (like on ABC or TBS) a lot more often than any of the others' were, but whatever the reason, he's their Bond.
Great analysis. Moore obviously dominated the pre-cable era of television so people 35 years and older were exposed mostly to him. I cannot tell you how often I saw the Golden Gun & Live and Let Die. It was not until college that I remember seeing Russia with Love in a retro theater( can't think of the right word). Dalton's Bond seemed grittier in a change with the times but he just seemed humorless. I rank License in my Top Ten and the teaser in Daylights is well done and easily my favorite opening of the entire run. Dalton got a bad deal.
I enjoyed the Dalton movies, not so much Dalton. He never really looked like Bond to me. I'm not sure why that is, but he just didn't seem to have that charisma.
GoldenEye is one of my favorite Bond movies. It was a script written for Dalton. After watching the movie years later (which was my first Bond movie in the theatre), I began to wonder what LtK & TLD would've been like with Brosnan.
Goldeneye was a great Bond film. It embraced the old and welcomed the new. Too bad the three other Brosnan films just pissed away that positive buzz. Casino Royale and Daniel Craig pretty much abandoned all but the trappings of a Bond film and quite honestly feel like a different series. Not so much in transition from Moore to Dalton and Dalton to Brosnan.
Goldeneye was definitely the best of the Brosnan Bond films, but I always thought Tomorrow Never Dies was underrated. I could kinda-sorta see how the villain's plot would actually work in real life, and it was fun to see Bond kicking ass alongside Michelle Yeoh, who is always awesome.
The World Is Not Enough, on the other hand... yeeeeeeeesh. Although credit where it's due: Desmond Llewelyn's farewell scene is nice. Damn shame he had to bow out in such a crap film, and of course how tragically he died so soon afterward.
As for Die Another Day, I remember liking it alright, but it did have the advantage of coming in after TWINE so pretty much any step up was greatly appreciated. I don't know how well it would fare now, but I'm curious to rewatch it at some point.
What's interesting is that so many people say they like the Daniel Craig ones now because they're grittier and more violent, but those were the same things that turned a lot of people off during Dalton's two films. Times and tastes change, I suppose... makes me wonder how well he'd be accepted as Bond if 1987 Timothy Dalton could take the role today.
Funny thing about Moore, though... even though a lot of his era is looked down upon in some circles, when I started talking to people about reading the books and rewatching the movies (or watching for the first time, in some cases), a lot of my friends started talking to me about how much they loved Roger Moore. Probably because he was Bond when we were kids and his movies seemed to be on TV (like on ABC or TBS) a lot more often than any of the others' were, but whatever the reason, he's their Bond.
Great analysis. Moore obviously dominated the pre-cable era of television so people 35 years and older were exposed mostly to him. I cannot tell you how often I saw the Golden Gun & Live and Let Die. It was not until college that I remember seeing Russia with Love in a retro theater( can't think of the right word). Dalton's Bond seemed grittier in a change with the times but he just seemed humorless. I rank License in my Top Ten and the teaser in Daylights is well done and easily my favorite opening of the entire run. Dalton got a bad deal.
I enjoyed the Dalton movies, not so much Dalton. He never really looked like Bond to me. I'm not sure why that is, but he just didn't seem to have that charisma.
GoldenEye is one of my favorite Bond movies. It was a script written for Dalton. After watching the movie years later (which was my first Bond movie in the theatre), I began to wonder what LtK & TLD would've been like with Brosnan.
M
IMO not as good. I agree that Goldeneye was his best but I really dislike Brosnan's portrayal. He had the mysogynist down nicely but lacked the darkness and sense of dangerousness.
What's interesting is that so many people say they like the Daniel Craig ones now because they're grittier and more violent, but those were the same things that turned a lot of people off during Dalton's two films. Times and tastes change, I suppose... makes me wonder how well he'd be accepted as Bond if 1987 Timothy Dalton could take the role today.
Funny thing about Moore, though... even though a lot of his era is looked down upon in some circles, when I started talking to people about reading the books and rewatching the movies (or watching for the first time, in some cases), a lot of my friends started talking to me about how much they loved Roger Moore. Probably because he was Bond when we were kids and his movies seemed to be on TV (like on ABC or TBS) a lot more often than any of the others' were, but whatever the reason, he's their Bond.
Great analysis. Moore obviously dominated the pre-cable era of television so people 35 years and older were exposed mostly to him. I cannot tell you how often I saw the Golden Gun & Live and Let Die. It was not until college that I remember seeing Russia with Love in a retro theater( can't think of the right word). Dalton's Bond seemed grittier in a change with the times but he just seemed humorless. I rank License in my Top Ten and the teaser in Daylights is well done and easily my favorite opening of the entire run. Dalton got a bad deal.
I enjoyed the Dalton movies, not so much Dalton. He never really looked like Bond to me. I'm not sure why that is, but he just didn't seem to have that charisma.
GoldenEye is one of my favorite Bond movies. It was a script written for Dalton. After watching the movie years later (which was my first Bond movie in the theatre), I began to wonder what LtK & TLD would've been like with Brosnan.
M
IMO not as good. I agree that Goldeneye was his best but I really dislike Brosnan's portrayal. He had the mysogynist down nicely but lacked the darkness and sense of dangerousness.
I've actually found Brosnan's portrayal to be a nice amalgam of the prior Bonds. He didn't have the darkness, but GoldenEye showed that sense of seriousness Dalton brought.
Brosnan had this seriousness with an immature & cavalier attitude I dug for Bond. Kind of like Michael Westen on Burn Notice. He'd fumble with expressing his feelings in his personal life, but could always be witty & add levity to a tense moment while 'working.'
With the exception of Craig, I'm not sure any of the Bonds had a sense of dangerousness. To me, Connery would probably come the closest, but even he seemed more cavalier then a man on fire.
What's interesting is that so many people say they like the Daniel Craig ones now because they're grittier and more violent, but those were the same things that turned a lot of people off during Dalton's two films. Times and tastes change, I suppose... makes me wonder how well he'd be accepted as Bond if 1987 Timothy Dalton could take the role today.
Funny thing about Moore, though... even though a lot of his era is looked down upon in some circles, when I started talking to people about reading the books and rewatching the movies (or watching for the first time, in some cases), a lot of my friends started talking to me about how much they loved Roger Moore. Probably because he was Bond when we were kids and his movies seemed to be on TV (like on ABC or TBS) a lot more often than any of the others' were, but whatever the reason, he's their Bond.
Great analysis. Moore obviously dominated the pre-cable era of television so people 35 years and older were exposed mostly to him. I cannot tell you how often I saw the Golden Gun & Live and Let Die. It was not until college that I remember seeing Russia with Love in a retro theater( can't think of the right word). Dalton's Bond seemed grittier in a change with the times but he just seemed humorless. I rank License in my Top Ten and the teaser in Daylights is well done and easily my favorite opening of the entire run. Dalton got a bad deal.
I enjoyed the Dalton movies, not so much Dalton. He never really looked like Bond to me. I'm not sure why that is, but he just didn't seem to have that charisma.
GoldenEye is one of my favorite Bond movies. It was a script written for Dalton. After watching the movie years later (which was my first Bond movie in the theatre), I began to wonder what LtK & TLD would've been like with Brosnan.
M
IMO not as good. I agree that Goldeneye was his best but I really dislike Brosnan's portrayal. He had the mysogynist down nicely but lacked the darkness and sense of dangerousness.
I've actually found Brosnan's portrayal to be a nice amalgam of the prior Bonds. He didn't have the darkness, but GoldenEye showed that sense of seriousness Dalton brought.
Brosnan had this seriousness with an immature & cavalier attitude I dug for Bond. Kind of like Michael Westen on Burn Notice. He'd fumble with expressing his feelings in his personal life, but could always be witty & add levity to a tense moment while 'working.'
With the exception of Craig, I'm not sure any of the Bonds had a sense of dangerousness. To me, Connery would probably come the closest, but even he seemed more cavalier then a man on fire.
M
Immature is a GREAT descriptor. I'd add smug as well. For me, Connery was sarcasm and some danger. Moore was satire or camp. Dalton was anger / danger. Brosnan was smug / immature. Craig blends Connery and Dalton.
What's interesting is that so many people say they like the Daniel Craig ones now because they're grittier and more violent, but those were the same things that turned a lot of people off during Dalton's two films. Times and tastes change, I suppose... makes me wonder how well he'd be accepted as Bond if 1987 Timothy Dalton could take the role today.
Funny thing about Moore, though... even though a lot of his era is looked down upon in some circles, when I started talking to people about reading the books and rewatching the movies (or watching for the first time, in some cases), a lot of my friends started talking to me about how much they loved Roger Moore. Probably because he was Bond when we were kids and his movies seemed to be on TV (like on ABC or TBS) a lot more often than any of the others' were, but whatever the reason, he's their Bond.
Great analysis. Moore obviously dominated the pre-cable era of television so people 35 years and older were exposed mostly to him. I cannot tell you how often I saw the Golden Gun & Live and Let Die. It was not until college that I remember seeing Russia with Love in a retro theater( can't think of the right word). Dalton's Bond seemed grittier in a change with the times but he just seemed humorless. I rank License in my Top Ten and the teaser in Daylights is well done and easily my favorite opening of the entire run. Dalton got a bad deal.
I enjoyed the Dalton movies, not so much Dalton. He never really looked like Bond to me. I'm not sure why that is, but he just didn't seem to have that charisma.
GoldenEye is one of my favorite Bond movies. It was a script written for Dalton. After watching the movie years later (which was my first Bond movie in the theatre), I began to wonder what LtK & TLD would've been like with Brosnan.
M
IMO not as good. I agree that Goldeneye was his best but I really dislike Brosnan's portrayal. He had the mysogynist down nicely but lacked the darkness and sense of dangerousness.
I've actually found Brosnan's portrayal to be a nice amalgam of the prior Bonds. He didn't have the darkness, but GoldenEye showed that sense of seriousness Dalton brought.
Brosnan had this seriousness with an immature & cavalier attitude I dug for Bond. Kind of like Michael Westen on Burn Notice. He'd fumble with expressing his feelings in his personal life, but could always be witty & add levity to a tense moment while 'working.'
With the exception of Craig, I'm not sure any of the Bonds had a sense of dangerousness. To me, Connery would probably come the closest, but even he seemed more cavalier then a man on fire.
M
Immature is a GREAT descriptor. I'd add smug as well. For me, Connery was sarcasm and some danger. Moore was satire or camp. Dalton was anger / danger. Brosnan was smug / immature. Craig blends Connery and Dalton.
That 'Peter Pan' persona always seemed right for Bond. He could've grown up to be like Bruce Wayne following the death of his parents. Instead he took to a more playful approach & never growing up.
I think Brosnan managed to shift rather effectively from the gritty Dalton approach to a more lighthearted Moore one, but without veering into the camp that dates so much of Moore's era. Obviously some of it's dated, just like anything from the '90s, but at least we don't have redneck sheriff's making multiple appearances, or gags with animals doing double-takes during stunts. He's great in Goldeneye, and his other three films all start out promising (the first chunk of Die Another Day in particular promises a much better film than we ended up getting), but something always derails them - weak villain, annoying Bond girl, over the top CGI, etc. Viewing them now, they make up a solid decade for the series..
I think that part of my issue is that the innuendo seemed to go into overdrive during the Brosnan era and, given that grin of his, it felt particularly smarmy.
As I said, I really enjoyed Goldeneye as well, but when I found out that the script was originally intended for Dalton, felt a bit like the wind had been taken from my sails as I think that he would have delivered at least as well and, to me, probably better.
I agree that Goldeneye would have made for an even better third Dalton film.
I've often felt that initially, the Bond actors usually took about three films to get comfortable in the role. For Connery that would have been Goldfinger (whether it's your favorite or not, it's probably the quintessential classic Bond film in the public's eye). For Moore, it would have been The Spy Who Loved Me, also typically regarded as the peak of his run.
That theory goes out the window when Dalton doesn't get to do a third film, but I still think it might have held true.
I agree that Goldeneye would have made for an even better third Dalton film.
I've often felt that initially, the Bond actors usually took about three films to get comfortable in the role. For Connery that would have been Goldfinger (whether it's your favorite or not, it's probably the quintessential classic Bond film in the public's eye). For Moore, it would have been The Spy Who Loved Me, also typically regarded as the peak of his run.
That theory goes out the window when Dalton doesn't get to do a third film, but I still think it might have held true.
Does this theory account for The World is Not Enough ? I enjoy Robbie Coltrane, Sophie Marceau, Carlyle's villian, M's arc and the set production but I always felt Brosnan came in pretty much fully developed as Bond. Tomorrow Never Dies is bad but that is not Brosnan's fault. Brosnan's Bond is very consistent in his four films much more so than Connery and in particular Moore. I still have mixed feelings about Craig, I just cant help but think the character is moving away from anything we knew as Bond. Bond was not an automaton. Craig just sleepwalks through those films, as brilliantly executed as Casino and Skyfall are.
I agree that Goldeneye would have made for an even better third Dalton film.
I've often felt that initially, the Bond actors usually took about three films to get comfortable in the role. For Connery that would have been Goldfinger (whether it's your favorite or not, it's probably the quintessential classic Bond film in the public's eye). For Moore, it would have been The Spy Who Loved Me, also typically regarded as the peak of his run.
That theory goes out the window when Dalton doesn't get to do a third film, but I still think it might have held true.
Does this theory account for The World is Not Enough ? I enjoy Robbie Coltrane, Sophie Marceau, Carlyle's villian, M's arc and the set production but I always felt Brosnan came in pretty much fully developed as Bond. Tomorrow Never Dies is bad but that is not Brosnan's fault. Brosnan's Bond is very consistent in his four films much more so than Connery and in particular Moore. I still have mixed feelings about Craig, I just cant help but think the character is moving away from anything we knew as Bond. Bond was not an automaton. Craig just sleepwalks through those films, as brilliantly executed as Casino and Skyfall are.
The three film theory pretty much only worked through Connery and Moore. If anything, it seems like Brosnan and Craig arrived fully formed, and may have even peaked with their first films.
I agree that Goldeneye would have made for an even better third Dalton film.
I've often felt that initially, the Bond actors usually took about three films to get comfortable in the role. For Connery that would have been Goldfinger (whether it's your favorite or not, it's probably the quintessential classic Bond film in the public's eye). For Moore, it would have been The Spy Who Loved Me, also typically regarded as the peak of his run.
That theory goes out the window when Dalton doesn't get to do a third film, but I still think it might have held true.
Does this theory account for The World is Not Enough ? I enjoy Robbie Coltrane, Sophie Marceau, Carlyle's villian, M's arc and the set production but I always felt Brosnan came in pretty much fully developed as Bond. Tomorrow Never Dies is bad but that is not Brosnan's fault. Brosnan's Bond is very consistent in his four films much more so than Connery and in particular Moore. I still have mixed feelings about Craig, I just cant help but think the character is moving away from anything we knew as Bond. Bond was not an automaton. Craig just sleepwalks through those films, as brilliantly executed as Casino and Skyfall are.
The three film theory pretty much only worked through Connery and Moore. If anything, it seems like Brosnan and Craig arrived fully formed, and may have even peaked with their first films.
I absolutely agree. I hold out hope for Craig and enjoy Brosnan's post Bond acting career.
The new Bond film will be called Spectre which to fans should be exciting as it indicates the return of that group. Heroes work better with a nemesis. Christopher Waltz is in the cast and hopefully will be Blofeld. David Bautista as a bad guy. And the best news: Monica Bellucci as a Bond Girl. Bellucci is smoking hot and the fact that she is 50 and still smoking hot and now a Bond Girl is great news to my 45 year old fan boy's heart ( among other body parts). I am very excited by all the news. Skyfall was a critical and commercial winner and the supporting crew and behind the camera crew( Sam Mendes directing) all return. Bond always has the highest production quality and if you do not mind a little product placement with your blockbuster than Spectre will be for you!
The new Bond film will be called Spectre which to fans should be exciting as it indicates the return of that group. Heroes work better with a nemesis. Christopher Waltz is in the cast and hopefully will be Blofeld. David Bautista as a bad guy. And the best news: Monica Bellucci as a Bond Girl. Bellucci is smoking hot and the fact that she is 50 and still smoking hot and now a Bond Girl is great news to my 45 year old fan boy's heart ( among other body parts). I am very excited by all the news. Skyfall was a critical and commercial winner and the supporting crew and behind the camera crew( Sam Mendes directing) all return. Bond always has the highest production quality and if you do not mind a little product placement with your blockbuster than Spectre will be for you!
Back in the day, Spectre and Blofeld were forced to exit the James Bond mythos due to a lawsuit lodged by Kevin McClory, who was at one time a would-be co-screenwriter with Ian Fleming. This was before Bond appeared in any movies and Fleming was trying to garner some interest in his so-so selling spy books by shopping a screenplay on 007. Kevin McClory and Jack Whittingham, were asked to help hash out said screenplay.
They wrote a screenplay together that introduced "SPECTRE" and mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The organization that Bond fought most of the time inthe Fleming books was the Soviet spy division SMERSH, a real organization, but it's been theorized that Fleming realized that there was so much communist sympathy in Hollywood and they might not be interested in a Bond who was constantly killing Soviet agents. So they created a fantasy cold war organization in SPECTRE to replace the true to life SMERSH. Frankly, I believe SPECTRE is a much cooler name/acronym than SMERSH.
The screenplay project was basically abandoned as a failure, and several years later, when Fleming was writing a new Bond novel, he decided to use a lot of the ideas generated in the script-writing sessions for the new book which he called Thunderball. But, Fleming failed to credit McClory or Whittingham for having helped create the ideas and characters contained in that book. Kevin McClory would later sue, it was settled, and as part of the settlement, he was given ownership of Spectre and Blofeld, as well as the right to remake Thunderball at some point in the future. (McClory later did remake Thunderball as the much underrated, non-EON Sean Connery Bond film Never Say Never Again.)
But now MGM has apparently acquired all rights that McClory once held, so all rights to Bond are finally now just held by one party. And so, fifty years after Blofeld was killed by lawsuits, he's back to threaten the world!
Isn't it Quantum, not Solace, that was the name of the criminal organisation? Anyway, maybe they can show that the Quantum group was just a side project for the real threat SPECTRE.
Hopefully Andrew Scott gets something more substantial than standing in front of banks of computer screens (he is Moriarty in Sherlock).
Does anyone else think that setting a date for this time next year is a really short schedule? I can only assume they've already done a lot of second unit and technical stuff already. I know there won't be any aliens and spaceships style cgi, but still, there'll be a lot of post-production to get through.
Isn't it Quantum, not Solace, that was the name of the criminal organisation? Anyway, maybe they can show that the Quantum group was just a side project for the real threat SPECTRE.
Hopefully Andrew Scott gets something more substantial than standing in front of banks of computer screens (he is Moriarty in Sherlock).
Does anyone else think that setting a date for this time next year is a really short schedule? I can only assume they've already done a lot of second unit and technical stuff already. I know there won't be any aliens and spaceships style cgi, but still, there'll be a lot of post-production to get through.
It was reported yesterday that Jesper Christensen, the actor that played Quantum agent Mr. White in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, is also going to appear in this installment. Since the web is made for speculation, I'm guessing that SPECTRE will crush Quantum and demonstrate that they are the one and only powerful antagonist organization in the world of agent 007.
Comments
GoldenEye is one of my favorite Bond movies. It was a script written for Dalton. After watching the movie years later (which was my first Bond movie in the theatre), I began to wonder what LtK & TLD would've been like with Brosnan.
M
The World Is Not Enough, on the other hand... yeeeeeeeesh. Although credit where it's due: Desmond Llewelyn's farewell scene is nice. Damn shame he had to bow out in such a crap film, and of course how tragically he died so soon afterward.
As for Die Another Day, I remember liking it alright, but it did have the advantage of coming in after TWINE so pretty much any step up was greatly appreciated. I don't know how well it would fare now, but I'm curious to rewatch it at some point.
Brosnan had this seriousness with an immature & cavalier attitude I dug for Bond. Kind of like Michael Westen on Burn Notice. He'd fumble with expressing his feelings in his personal life, but could always be witty & add levity to a tense moment while 'working.'
With the exception of Craig, I'm not sure any of the Bonds had a sense of dangerousness. To me, Connery would probably come the closest, but even he seemed more cavalier then a man on fire.
M
M
As I said, I really enjoyed Goldeneye as well, but when I found out that the script was originally intended for Dalton, felt a bit like the wind had been taken from my sails as I think that he would have delivered at least as well and, to me, probably better.
I've often felt that initially, the Bond actors usually took about three films to get comfortable in the role. For Connery that would have been Goldfinger (whether it's your favorite or not, it's probably the quintessential classic Bond film in the public's eye). For Moore, it would have been The Spy Who Loved Me, also typically regarded as the peak of his run.
That theory goes out the window when Dalton doesn't get to do a third film, but I still think it might have held true.
M
Back in the day, Spectre and Blofeld were forced to exit the James Bond mythos due to a lawsuit lodged by Kevin McClory, who was at one time a would-be co-screenwriter with Ian Fleming. This was before Bond appeared in any movies and Fleming was trying to garner some interest in his so-so selling spy books by shopping a screenplay on 007. Kevin McClory and Jack Whittingham, were asked to help hash out said screenplay.
They wrote a screenplay together that introduced "SPECTRE" and mastermind Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The organization that Bond fought most of the time inthe Fleming books was the Soviet spy division SMERSH, a real organization, but it's been theorized that Fleming realized that there was so much communist sympathy in Hollywood and they might not be interested in a Bond who was constantly killing Soviet agents. So they created a fantasy cold war organization in SPECTRE to replace the true to life SMERSH. Frankly, I believe SPECTRE is a much cooler name/acronym than SMERSH.
The screenplay project was basically abandoned as a failure, and several years later, when Fleming was writing a new Bond novel, he decided to use a lot of the ideas generated in the script-writing sessions for the new book which he called Thunderball. But, Fleming failed to credit McClory or Whittingham for having helped create the ideas and characters contained in that book. Kevin McClory would later sue, it was settled, and as part of the settlement, he was given ownership of Spectre and Blofeld, as well as the right to remake Thunderball at some point in the future. (McClory later did remake Thunderball as the much underrated, non-EON Sean Connery Bond film Never Say Never Again.)
But now MGM has apparently acquired all rights that McClory once held, so all rights to Bond are finally now just held by one party. And so, fifty years after Blofeld was killed by lawsuits, he's back to threaten the world!
So far, this is sounding like a much more traditional Bond picture, but hopefully made with more smarts and skill, like most of the Craig films.
Since Mr. White is set to return, I'm hoping Solace was just a front organization for SPECTRE.
M
Hopefully Andrew Scott gets something more substantial than standing in front of banks of computer screens (he is Moriarty in Sherlock).
Does anyone else think that setting a date for this time next year is a really short schedule? I can only assume they've already done a lot of second unit and technical stuff already. I know there won't be any aliens and spaceships style cgi, but still, there'll be a lot of post-production to get through.
M