It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
General observation of how the film was viewed at the time and by the audience outwith forums. Many outside of fandom can even now cant remember Lazenby names he's often been "The Australian fella" and "the guy who was Bond in the one he got marrried". My original point was the personal approach back then didn't go down too well either after Connery cruel portrayal.
Nothing but a keyboard warrior.
Oh Hilly. Do something more productive.
Mendes is a good director. SF is a good movie. But like any artist who becomes full of themselves and let themselves go, your ego turns into a 1990s Brando.
These are basically my thoughts although I've come to enjoy SF. Probably because nostalgia is starting to set in.
After having SF as a one off, I would have sacked Mendes and continue doing films in the style of CR and QOS. I just love how different they are compared to the 62-02 films. In the years to come when I look back on the Craig era, I'm gonna think of those two films. They make a hell of a double feature.
And I'm still bummed we didn't get a film in 2010. That way we could've seen Craig's Bond in his prime.
I still find it strange that there are people out there that still believe OHMSS was a flop. Having said that, anyone who brings up this falsehood as a fact is only keeping this dumb fabrication alive, @SirHilaryBray, and should know better.
Nothing fabrication at all. As I said those who enjoy a Bond movie, but not necessarily fans or die hard followers are simply not too bothered about Lazenby or OHMSS. Sorry if that offends you but it's the truth many can't remember anything other than he gets married or that Lazenby was Australian. That's nothing to do with EON spin, the crowd wanted Connery and after his return for DAF, OHMSS was "the one we don't talk about". Craig's take has raised OHMSS appreciation for the films emotional aspects.
FYI I personally love the film FYI
Seriously good post.
I would also add that Mendes put a complete stop to the momentum Craig had generated over CR and QoS.
Oh what could've been if we'd gone all GF or TSWLM for Craig's third entry instead of some turgid nonsense about Bond facing his mortality.
I still find that theme inconceivable after Bond finally put his growing pains to bed in QoS and minted himself as a fully fledged 00.
I like to see the love for the 80s films. It's my favorite decade of Bond.
Who came up with that idea, anyway? Was it him?
Pretty sure that only started with LALD and TMWTGG with Harry doing the former and Cubby the latter.
You are completely correct and I'm not offended in the slightest. But to most of the public all Bond films are interchangeable and 99% couldn't tell you which films had the submarine car or the volcano base or Jaws. At least George is remembered for his one off status and getting married. I'd say the general public barely remember Dalton's reign at all.
The only thing I'm confused about is why we should give the slightest toss about the public's opinion in the first place?
Because of they don't got to cinemas then Studios won't make the films. Simple economics and cold harsh reality of the industry.
[/quote]
Well, @TheWizardOfIce , not to be condescending, but Cubby did say: if the films make a dollar, there’ll be another.
It’s the public who makes sure the films “make a dollar”; and therefore the public interest should be taken into serious consideration.
As an add on: whether we like Dalton or not, one more film with him and the tickets bought to his third film would have been more abysmal than LTK. And that’s not good for the franchise— whether we like that reality or not.
Getting Brosnan at the time was a smart business decision— and as some ppl in the know would tell you, he auditioned very strongly for TLD.
Keeping Craig now is the same as getting Brosnan: smart. Ppl buy tickets for DC’s Bond.
Whether you agree or not, the public opinion counts more than our fan-wankery.
Anybody who loves those two films, yet despises SF and SP because of "plot holes", is a bloody hypocrite.
Laughably so.
That’s not entirely correct. I by no means have those movies high on my ranking but, they are fun and it’s okay if they are a bit outlandish and don’t make entire sense. However with the Craig films they have asked us as an audience to buy into a real world universe. This helped to reinvent the franchise but a side effect is that now the plots have to be more solid. You cant have a real world gritty bond but a silly laughable plot. That’s what makes the mendes bond films exceptionally disappointing
I see SF hailed a masterpiece on here constantly.
Because of they don't got to cinemas then Studios won't make the films. Simple economics and cold harsh reality of the industry.
Clark standard dropped after OHMSS. Then again after LALD until Octopussy and then to Dalton. Then again after Goldeneye. Truth is a first outing tends to be the best (Connery the exception) the more films one actor does the more diluted their original portrayal becomes and gradually more over the top and ridiculous.
FRWL closest for me. It ouzes elegance and is well balanced between story and action.
Oh I agree the proper "Silverscreen" Lawrence of Arabia etc. I'm with you.
Thanks for illuminating me as to how the film business works chaps.
What I was confused about was how a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of Mendes suddenly became a question of chasing box office dollar. Are people advocating that Mendes is good for Bond simply because he's raked in 2bn in the last two films?
Tamahori made a decent wedge back in the day and the general public lapped it up so were they wrong to change direction then?
There is a price far above rubies, or even Sam's billion pounds.
Obviously you ( like so many people here ) are not aware what exactly constitutes a plot hole.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't regard Dr No, LALD or TLD as their actor's best.
Lazenby only did one, though admittedly there's no way he could make a movie that's better than OHMSS.