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
And it would keep things out of focus.
Not a fan of the flippancy with which Roger’s tenure is treated by some fans. The guy was a behemoth and while his tenure strayed away from the source, he created something indelible in his own unique way. The Bond canon is a far less rich proposition once you remove his work.
STOP! Yes, it is entirely possibe that Craig won't end up playing Bond in Bond 25. (anything happen between now and the last day of shooting of Bond 25), but right now Craig's return is 100% official.
Then they might as well call Bond 25 Nail in the Coffin. Title song by Dame Bassey.
He's the man, the man with the drama touch
Stepbrother's touch
Such a lame twist
Beckons you
To watch another Bond film
But not by him!
:))
I would gladly lose every Bond film from 71 to 85 (yes that includes Diamonds) and the series would not be any worse off. Bond's bad reputation as camp and silly is from this period, and Dalton did good work bringing back the Fleming of it, which was not appreciated at the time. It went off the rails again with Brosnan's tenure (a lamentable attempt to marry Connery and Moore Bond.)
With Casino Royale they returned to the Fleming of it, and the series is all the better for it. I was not a fan of the slight return of the Mooreish humour in Spectre, where they were trying to make a "BOND" film, rather than have a film with Fleming's Bond in it, like it had been for the previous 3 films. But there wasn't so much of it that it spoiled the film.
There is humour in Bond. But it's dark, and it's of a man coping with the darkness in his life and the death he brings, that could come at any moment for him. Not a raised eyebrow and a quip laden with enough sexual innuendo to sink a small ship.
I mean no offence to fans of Sir Roger, or his films. He seemed an absolute star of a man, and I like him. But as far as I am concerned he was totally wrong casting, and not James Bond.
The Craig era kicked off strong and then gradually lost steam and direction with visuals over any decent content.
Not sure why you need to be rude. I’m stating an opinion. Plenty of Craig hate on the internet, and while I don’t agree with it, I wouldn’t stoop to insults just because someone doesn’t like what I do.
And I don't have to like something just because it's Bond. The circumstances of me being a Bond fan are when the films are good films which are true to the spirit of Fleming. The Moore films are, for the most part, not good and give a completely wrong impression of who James Bond is, which coloured the view of the character for a whole generation.
The actual character of James Bond as created by Ian Fleming is not featured in the majority of Moore's films. He is there to an extent in LALD & TMWTGG, but once we get to TSWLM he has disappeared. He comes back in TLD.
If someone likes the Moore films, then great. But for me they are not Bond. They are slapstick action comedies that feature a spy whose name happens to be James Bond, but is not Fleming’s Bond, which is the one I am personally interested in.
So no return to camp thanks:-)
No Fleming, No Bond.
And as I said, the spirit of Fleming needs to be there.
In the majority of Moore's it isn't.
Precisely. Film Bond and literary Bond are two different animals thankfully. Film Bond has allowed the flexibility to make changes and reinvent in every era. Stagnation would have set in long ago with strict literary adherence.
@bondjames All I said is that Moore’s Bond isn’t Fleming’s Bond. Surely you can’t disagree with that?
If I was to take to heart some things that are said about Craig on this forum I would be curled up in a ball in the corner crying. But I don’t.
It wasn’t a personal insult to you, nor to Sir Roger. If you re read my posts I say how much I liked the man himself, I just feel he was miscast as Bond. And I stand by that.
My favourite Bond has a website dedicated to him “not being Bond” which is still active to this day. I heartily disagree with them, but I don’t tell them they have no taste. If I was that sensitive about it I would never come on any forums because someone somewhere is going to not agree with you. That’s what forums are, but they should not devolve into insults.
Your choice was to ignore my comment, or to respond to me why you think I’m wrong and give me your argument. You didn’t and went straight to insults.
I agree with you about DAF (as I stated in my first post), and yes of course the producers share some of the blame. But it was Sir Roger who was the main culprit for the change in direction as it was his interpretation of Bond which is front and centre.
As for your subtle humour, may I suggest the use of emoticons to portray that which seems to be hidden;-)
I am, as I type this, enjoying OP immensely as always I must say.
Mea culpa!
He's a lot more jovial in MR, serious in FYEO, jovial again in OP and then a bit more serious in AVTAK. He's closest to the novel character in the first two, as you noted earlier.
Tonally, I think both he and Sean were the ones who got it just right over their runs (in terms of matching up to the type of film they were acting in). That's why they remain my top two Bond actors. After all, it's difficult to bring Fleming's Bond to something as outlandish conceptually as MR.
I find that the others were a bit more limited in their ability to work within different tonal templates and the films had to be more tailored to their strengths.
Having said all that, I'm primarily a film fan first and foremost, and so don't have your perspective.
--
EDIT: An article I just found on the very subject of discussion by pure coincidence:
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/roger-moore/50577/roger-moore-s-james-bond-appreciating-the-raised-eyebrow
SC and DC have been particularly meaningful: SC in a hardcore 60s, Cold War era; DC in a post-9/11 world.
I am not a big fan of Moore's era and I actively dump two of his films in my bottom four, but damn.....the guy was a natural in his approach. Nobody I know can raise their eyebrow that high.
Anytime Moore-esque humour has come back in, it has never really felt right.
What I would appreciate is simply developing the series on. That means appreciating what has been done so far, especially the good things, and go on from there. Doing "something that has never been done" sounds generous, but if a filmmaker says so, it would in reality result in ignorance of what has been done, while not improving anything.
All actors so far enhanced Bond‘s worldwide fame and clicked with audiences of their times.
+1 very well said.