Where does Bond go after Craig?

007HallY

We really lost some great pieces of film trivia by not having Reed as Bond. One can imagine the stories of actresses slapping Reed or Reed himself doing stupid things while drunk.

They really got a good deal with Moore. Not only was he a competent, experienced actor but he had a good relationship with the producers and the public.

SIS_HQ

007HallY wrote: »

We really lost some great pieces of film trivia by not having Reed as Bond. One can imagine the stories of actresses slapping Reed or Reed himself doing stupid things while drunk.

They really got a good deal with Moore. Not only was he a competent, experienced actor but he had a good relationship with the producers and the public.

About Moore, he's a gentleman and he had the looks, he's handsome and slick.

echo

SIS_HQ wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.

Again, it's more evident in Gold and Shout At The Devil.

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

Lazenby, as I've said, I've felt that he could brought out some better performance, I think he could do better, it's just suppressed and kept because of a director who had never guided him, but I think if Lazenby was directed with a different director, he could possibly brought out his A Game, his best effort.

Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it, felt faked or staged, not real.

Okay, I've explained these things above
regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

DarthDimi wrote: »

I think, indeed, that Lazenby could and should have been directed better, or at least have allowed himself to be. (I don't know who takes the biggest blame.) I certainly think he had the potential to grow into the part if he had been willing.

mtm wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Lazenby looked like a dopey horse; nothing was going on behind his eyes.

OHMSS is still my top two film.

When Bond is listening to the count as he's listing all the documents he has assembled, Lazenby looks positively sleepy. I don't think he had "the stare" down, you know, when an actor has to convey something with just his eyes.

Or perhaps he really was bored. 😉

I know what you mean; and the scene where Blofeld unmasks him as Sir Hilary I'm not getting anything either- he just feels like he's pulling a grumpy face to me. And the way his eyes are darting around uncertainly just makes me feel like he didn't know how to do 'reacting' to another actor.

Agreed. He doesn't seem to know what to do with his eyes. Reminds me also of when he is choking one of Blofeld's goons with his ski. As long as he is applying enough force, he seems into it. But when he is just trying not to draw any attention to himself, he's almost distracted from his acting, seemingly forgetting that the cameras are still rolling. His eyes are purposelessly scanning the area in front of him.

I don't want to be too hard on Lazenby. He was a very physical Bond with a lot of stamina and rough charm. But some of his blank stares pull me out of the film.

This is what I'm saying, there's a great performance hiding inside of Lazenby, there's a potential, really, if he's been given enough focus.

Umm, Hunt *saved* TB in the editing room when Young (unprofessionally? I don't know the circumstances) walked away from it.

For me, Hunt is the best Bond director because had a vision and he gave us the closest film we will ever see to a true Fleming adaptation, while still delivering all the Eon tropes of the '60s.

007ClassicBondFan

007HallY wrote: »

We really lost some great pieces of film trivia by not having Reed as Bond. One can imagine the stories of actresses slapping Reed or Reed himself doing stupid things while drunk.

They really got a good deal with Moore. Not only was he a competent, experienced actor but he had a good relationship with the producers and the public.

Man one can only imagine those publicly tours and talk show appearances!

007HallY wrote: »

. Reed is actually someone I imagine as Bond when I read the novels. He definitely had a similar magnetism to Connery.

Interesting that you say that because I’m a huge fan of the paintings of George Almond, who paints out certain scenes from the Fleming novels, and he has one sketch of Fleming’s Bonds that’s looks an awful lot like Oliver Reed.

SIS_HQ

echo wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.

Again, it's more evident in Gold and Shout At The Devil.

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

Lazenby, as I've said, I've felt that he could brought out some better performance, I think he could do better, it's just suppressed and kept because of a director who had never guided him, but I think if Lazenby was directed with a different director, he could possibly brought out his A Game, his best effort.

Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it, felt faked or staged, not real.

Okay, I've explained these things above
regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

DarthDimi wrote: »

I think, indeed, that Lazenby could and should have been directed better, or at least have allowed himself to be. (I don't know who takes the biggest blame.) I certainly think he had the potential to grow into the part if he had been willing.

mtm wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

peter wrote: »

Lazenby looked like a dopey horse; nothing was going on behind his eyes.

OHMSS is still my top two film.

When Bond is listening to the count as he's listing all the documents he has assembled, Lazenby looks positively sleepy. I don't think he had "the stare" down, you know, when an actor has to convey something with just his eyes.

Or perhaps he really was bored. 😉

I know what you mean; and the scene where Blofeld unmasks him as Sir Hilary I'm not getting anything either- he just feels like he's pulling a grumpy face to me. And the way his eyes are darting around uncertainly just makes me feel like he didn't know how to do 'reacting' to another actor.

Agreed. He doesn't seem to know what to do with his eyes. Reminds me also of when he is choking one of Blofeld's goons with his ski. As long as he is applying enough force, he seems into it. But when he is just trying not to draw any attention to himself, he's almost distracted from his acting, seemingly forgetting that the cameras are still rolling. His eyes are purposelessly scanning the area in front of him.

I don't want to be too hard on Lazenby. He was a very physical Bond with a lot of stamina and rough charm. But some of his blank stares pull me out of the film.

This is what I'm saying, there's a great performance hiding inside of Lazenby, there's a potential, really, if he's been given enough focus.

Umm, Hunt *saved* TB in the editing room when Young (unprofessionally? I don't know the circumstances) walked away from it.

For me, Hunt is the best Bond director because had a vision and he gave us the closest film we will ever see to a true Fleming adaptation, while still delivering all the Eon tropes of the '60s.

But what he had done with the dreary underwater scenes, I'm not sure if Young
staying would've improved the editing of it.

Yes, he had the vision, but then so Young, and he made a good relationship with some of the casts, unlike Hunt.

And Young probably understands Bond better than Hunt.

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

Interesting that you say that because I’m a huge fan of the paintings of George Almond, who paints out certain scenes from the Fleming novels, and he has one sketch of Fleming’s Bonds that’s looks an awful lot like Oliver Reed.

If you've seen the Pan Version of the book of Gardner's Brokenclaw, it's the image of Bond that I'm thinking of Oliver Reed, I don't know, could you show me that picture?

Because Bond for me needs to be gentleman and handsome.

007HallY

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

We really lost some great pieces of film trivia by not having Reed as Bond. One can imagine the stories of actresses slapping Reed or Reed himself doing stupid things while drunk.

They really got a good deal with Moore. Not only was he a competent, experienced actor but he had a good relationship with the producers and the public.

Man one can only imagine those publicly tours and talk show appearances!

007HallY wrote: »

. Reed is actually someone I imagine as Bond when I read the novels. He definitely had a similar magnetism to Connery.

Interesting that you say that because I’m a huge fan of the paintings of George Almond, who paints out certain scenes from the Fleming novels, and he has one sketch of Fleming’s Bonds that’s looks an awful lot like Oliver Reed.

I definitely get a strong whiff of Bond from his appearance when he was younger - the black hair, blue eyes, good looks. The guy even had scars on his face. The voice is very much what I imagine Fleming’s Bond to sound like too.

I imagine Bond would have exasperated his drinking on talk shows. Around the 60s/70s he was still appearing on things like Parkinson sober (or at least relatively so) and doing damage control for his antics. It’s only really in the 80s we get to his ‘drunken old man in a pub who’s just s*it himself’ stage.

mtm

007ClassicBondFan wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Yes, he'd have been pretty terrific in that, agreed.

I think it was huge missed opportunity not having Reed as Bond. For all we know he probably could’ve been the best Bond, but then again I don’t think we would have gotten Roger, whom I’d never trade for the world.

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Trouble is Reed aged very fast (for fairly obvious reasons). Had they cast him in '68 they'd have probably only got about two films out of him. Three maximum.

Yeah that would’ve been the issue. I think if he had been cast than Cubby and Harry probably would’ve done their damn best to reshape his image and persona into that of Bond, and I don’t think Reed would’ve played along because that would’ve entailed setting aside his “hellraiser” image.

Yeah, if he'd done a Bond I don't think we'd have got many more out of him- either he'd have quit or been fired. Some of his performances got a bit extravagant - not long ago I watched the Agatha Christie film (I think it's And Then There Were None but it may have had one of its other titles!) he did and although he's good, he's also quite bizarre at times in it too. Early-mid 60s might have been the best time to get him.

Venutius

George was absolutely his own worst enemy - and probably still is, given that kerfuffle last year. But he did punch out Oliver Reed with one shot, so... What? No, I'm not a fan of the idea of Reed as Bond, what gave it away? ;)

MajorDSmythe

Oliver Reed was a fine actor, but I can't picture him as Bond. Even if we set aside his notorious drinking sessions (so much that Lee Marvin, who liked a drink himself, confessed to not being able to keep up with Reed). Reed was to burly looking for Bond. He would have made for one hell of a villain/henchman though.

CrabKey

It's probably time for an acting thread. A lot here about the skills of past actors that has nothing to do with where Bond goes next. I invite you to share your thoughts about acting on The Art of Acting Bond thread.

SIS_HQ

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

Oliver Reed was a fine actor, but I can't picture him as Bond. Even if we set aside his notorious drinking sessions (so much that Lee Marvin, who liked a drink himself, confessed to not being able to keep up with Reed). Reed was to burly looking for Bond. He would have made for one hell of a villain/henchman though.

True, for me, Bond should be more debonair, gentlemanly looking, and handsome.
Actually, he's more leaner than the actors who played him.

Oliver Reed just didn't fit that criteria, he's too much rugged looking, he didn't have the looks to play the role.

MakeshiftPython

Reed would have been a more interesting choice for OHMSS.

Lazenby was just an uncharismatic male model pretending to be an actor. I’m truly bewildered by anyone that suggesting that he was a great as Bond, especially when touted as a favorite. I rank OHMSS at #3, but that’s in spite of Lazenby. Had Connery done it and gave it his best, it would have probably shot to #1.

George_Kaplan

Lazenby had swagger (though not the right sort for Bond), he was a good fighter, and I think he played the proposal scene and the ending very well. I give him the edge on Brosnan, but he's still second from the bottom for me.

SIS_HQ wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

Oliver Reed was a fine actor, but I can't picture him as Bond. Even if we set aside his notorious drinking sessions (so much that Lee Marvin, who liked a drink himself, confessed to not being able to keep up with Reed). Reed was to burly looking for Bond. He would have made for one hell of a villain/henchman though.

True, for me, Bond should be more debonair, gentlemanly looking, and handsome.
Actually, he's more leaner than the actors who played him.

Oliver Reed just didn't fit that criteria, he's too much rugged looking, he didn't have the looks to play the role.

I think that's fair of his later years, but when he was younger he was pretty dashing.

Mendes4Lyfe

Great to see the lively engaged debate, especially on OHMSS, but maybe its time the conversation returned to Bond 26.

According to Wikipedia Purvis and Wade were hired on Bond 25 in March of 2017, roughly 2 and a half years before the original release date for the film. If Bond 26 finds a writer by March of next year, that should make November 2026 release almost guaranteed.

echo

We have all the time in the world.

007ClassicBondFan

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Great to see the lively engaged debate, especially on OHMSS, but maybe its time the conversation returned to Bond 26.

According to Wikipedia Purvis and Wade were hired on Bond 25 in March of 2017, roughly 2 and a half years before the original release date for the film. If Bond 26 finds a writer by March of next year, that should make November 2026 release almost guaranteed.

Why so we can keep hearing people complain about the release dates being pushed back again? What else is there to talk about on this thread? No official news yet, and we can’t make guarantees on any release date currently. I want to keep talking about drunk Oliver Reed gosh darn it!

SIS_HQ

George_Kaplan wrote: »

Lazenby had swagger (though not the right sort for Bond), he was a good fighter, and I think he played the proposal scene and the ending very well. I give him the edge on Brosnan, but he's still second from the bottom for me.

SIS_HQ wrote: »

MajorDSmythe wrote: »

Oliver Reed was a fine actor, but I can't picture him as Bond. Even if we set aside his notorious drinking sessions (so much that Lee Marvin, who liked a drink himself, confessed to not being able to keep up with Reed). Reed was to burly looking for Bond. He would have made for one hell of a villain/henchman though.

True, for me, Bond should be more debonair, gentlemanly looking, and handsome.
Actually, he's more leaner than the actors who played him.

Oliver Reed just didn't fit that criteria, he's too much rugged looking, he didn't have the looks to play the role.

I think that's fair of his later years, but when he was younger he was pretty dashing.

No, he's not handsome, big eyes, just that sober and rugged look, great look for a henchman though, even Robert Shaw as Red Grant looked handsome compared to him.

Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »

Great to see the lively engaged debate, especially on OHMSS, but maybe its time the conversation returned to Bond 26.

According to Wikipedia Purvis and Wade were hired on Bond 25 in March of 2017, roughly 2 and a half years before the original release date for the film. If Bond 26 finds a writer by March of next year, that should make November 2026 release almost guaranteed.

That's tragic! When would the Bond 26 come out? When I'm already in my 30's? 😅

MakeshiftPython wrote: »

Reed would have been a more interesting choice for OHMSS.

Lazenby was just an uncharismatic male model pretending to be an actor. I’m truly bewildered by anyone that suggesting that he was a great as Bond, especially when touted as a favorite. I rank OHMSS at #3, but that’s in spite of Lazenby. Had Connery done it and gave it his best, it would have probably shot to #1.

He may not be great, but the guy looked more Bondian than Reed who looked like a gangster!
No one's saying Lazenby is their favorite, I'm mystified at whom if there's any, let alone the best.
But the guy had the potential.

What makes OHMSS the ultimate flaw for me was the directing, it felt slow at parts, which I'll admit, and some close up shots and cuts to which made me laughed while watching the film.

Anyway, despite of Peter Hunt's directorial flaws, it's still my favorite Bond film, no problem with Lazenby, the guy did fine.

Now, may I ask anyone to replace Barbara Bach or Carole Bouquet, please? Their acting distracts me everytime I'm watching their respective films, TSWLM and FYEO, their acting are insufferable to be honest, like how the heck they're cast in such roles?!

Melina Havelock should've been played by a more talented actress who could convey good emotions and flexibility, it's a waste of a good character.

But Bach, she's definitely an overrated Bond Girl: couldn't act, passive character who did nothing, for me the film would've been more better without her, I prefer Caroline Munro myself, Anya Amasova/Barbara Bach is one of the worst Bond Girls, even moreso than Denise Richards as Christmas Jones!

Unpopular opinion, I know, but it is what it is, I just couldn't stand Bach, good for her for marrying Ringo though.

jetsetwilly

Oliver Reed was in the mould of another Robert Shaw. He would have made a great baddie.

My 2 cents on Lazenby - great looking as Bond, great in the action scenes, terrible actor for most part, even though OHMSS is one of my favourite films. He often comes across looking bored when reacting to other actors.

And my 2 cents on Moore - a much better actor than anyone ever gave him credit for. The fight scene in the back room in TMWTGG, Moore looks shaken as the men pile up around him. The centrifuge scene in MR, his acting is spot on, just as good as Dalton or Craig would have played it.

When Moore needed to play Bond serious, in pain, scared or disturbed, Moore could easily slip into these emotions on screen effectively.

SIS_HQ

jetsetwilly wrote: »

Oliver Reed was in the mould of another Robert Shaw. He would have made a great baddie.

My 2 cents on Lazenby - great looking as Bond, great in the action scenes, terrible actor for most part, even though OHMSS is one of my favourite films. He often comes across looking bored when reacting to other actors.

And my 2 cents on Moore - a much better actor than anyone ever gave him credit for. The fight scene in the back room in TMWTGG, Moore looks shaken as the men pile up around him. The centrifuge scene in MR, his acting is spot on, just as good as Dalton or Craig would have played it.

When Moore needed to play Bond serious, in pain, scared or disturbed, Moore could easily slip into these emotions on screen effectively.

It's about the scene depiction for me, I liked to be affected when watching some scenes, even when Moore was in serious mode, I still find him fun, I don't feel anything, yes, the closest to it would be the centrifuge scene (and maybe because it's well directed compared to others in his Era).

For me, George Lazenby and Lois Chiles are the most maligned Bond actor/actress in the Franchise.

Benny

If you don't feel anything when Bond faces off against Orlov in the train carriage, then you're watching a different film than me.
Also the urgency when Bond defuses the bomb in OP, I know many people have a problem with Bond in the clown outfit, but he's in a circus, could there be a better disguise for him?
No other Bond actor could play that scene as convincingly as Moore. It's an understated credit to him as an actor, that he makes it work.

SIS_HQ

Benny wrote: »

If you don't feel anything when Bond faces off against Orlov in the train carriage, then you're watching a different film than me.
Also the urgency when Bond defuses the bomb in OP, I know many people have a problem with Bond in the clown outfit, but he's in a circus, could there be a better disguise for him?
No other Bond actor could play that scene as convincingly as Moore. It's an understated credit to him as an actor, that he makes it work.

The Bond and Orlov scene for me felt like expositions, the bomb scene is just okay, not as tense as the other scenes in the Franchise, I don't know, maybe because it's played more lightly with children and people everywhere watching him, I don't know, Octopussy for me is the most lighthearted Bond film, so that didn't helped?
Sure, no actor could've pulled it other than Moore himself, because that film was written with him in mind, but just I just don't felt anything while watching, but I have a fun watching it.

It's the most merrier Bond film for me, when I want to be happy, I'm going to watch that film.

mtm

I actually struggle to think of many moments that do have more tension in the 007 series than the bomb bit. The laser table from GF is certainly up there of course.

Benny

The auction scene for example is taken directly from Fleming (POAL) and the scene shortly after, when Bond and Khan play back gammon rivals GF for sheer Bond coolness.
Nothing wrong with being merry when watching OP, it's a great film. Severely underrated by some fans. But then we're all different.
What was your first Bond experience @SIS_HQ and how old were you?

SIS_HQ

mtm wrote: »

I actually struggle to think of many moments that do have more tension in the 007 series than the bomb bit. The laser table from GF is certainly up there of course.

For me, possibly, here were those:

* The centrifuge scene in MR
* The Night Cable Car scene in OHMSS
* The Laser scene in GF
* Bond turning off the spaceship hijacker in YOLT
* Bond in the Snow Festival Bazaar and in that Skating Rink in OHMSS
* Bond waiting for the pen to explode on Boris' hands in GE
* Bond (secretly) checking the corridors in Piz Gloria in OHMSS
* The Train fight scene in FRWL
* Bond and Pam sneaking inside of the Wavekrest in LTK
* Bond hanging at the ledge exterior of Casino while putting a cigarette bomb in LTK
* Bond's heart attack and that defibrillator scene in CR
* The Mounting Climbing in FYEO
* Bond's escape from Blofeld's base through ski in OHMSS
* Though not Bond, but Manuela's encounter with Jaws in that dark alley in MR
* The Skyfall climax/finale in Scotland
* I would've add the Junkanoo chase in TB if not for the messed up background music distracting the music playing in the festival itself.

There are many tense scenes that really got me while watching.

delfloria

I just got through reading about the premiere of the new Bond reality series. It looked like a film premiere lite with all of the Eon brass showing up and talking about it as if it was the premier of their next film. I'm sorry but I have no interest in this project and still feel that all the time and energy they have said that they poured into this to ensure it was up to their high standards could have been spent on Bond 26. With this and the Broadway play and other films they have recently produced I feel that they are having a hard time getting their heads around where to go after the Craig era and have lost their focus on making Bond FILMS. There are just so many hours in the day and brain cells you can apply to any given project and that EON is losing their passion for the cinematic Bond. At least for now.

LucknFate

delfloria wrote: »

I just got through reading about the premiere of the new Bond reality series. It looked like a film premiere lite with all of the Eon brass showing up and talking about it as if it was the premier of their next film. I'm sorry but I have no interest in this project and still feel that all the time and energy they have said that they poured into this to ensure it was up to their high standards could have been spent on Bond 26. With this and the Broadway play and other films they have recently produced I feel that they are having a hard time getting their heads around where to go after the Craig era and have lost their focus on making Bond FILMS. There are just so many hours in the day and brain cells you can apply to any given project and that EON is losing their passion for the cinematic Bond. At least for now.

Beating a dead horse at this point, but with Covid-19, two industry strikes which would have frozen any potential writing or casting work, the pending potential retirement of Michael G. Wilson, the onboarding of a new production partner in Amazon, the production of 2022's Till, the ongoing development of a video game, and then yes, also the production of a new TV show, has kept Eon busy and any potential film project pending.

Think back to the 90s/early aughts of Bond, with regular movie and game production with numerous global marketing/advertising tie-ins and the introduction of... a(n animated) James Bond tv show... I genuinely think the only thing holding Eon back at the moment is the tumultuous industry conditions, and the fact that their professional patience has paid off tremendously for them in the past, so why rush?

mtm

And round and round the thread goes...

delfloria

Well, the one good thing about Road To Millions is that we'll get some new Bond music from David Arnold.

Denbigh

I'm personally looking forward to the TV show and have no qualms about how long its taking for Bond 26. I'm patient, excited and trusting of what lies ahead.

delfloria

LucknFate wrote: »

delfloria wrote: »

I just got through reading about the premiere of the new Bond reality series. It looked like a film premiere lite with all of the Eon brass showing up and talking about it as if it was the premier of their next film. I'm sorry but I have no interest in this project and still feel that all the time and energy they have said that they poured into this to ensure it was up to their high standards could have been spent on Bond 26. With this and the Broadway play and other films they have recently produced I feel that they are having a hard time getting their heads around where to go after the Craig era and have lost their focus on making Bond FILMS. There are just so many hours in the day and brain cells you can apply to any given project and that EON is losing their passion for the cinematic Bond. At least for now.

Beating a dead horse at this point, but with Covid-19, two industry strikes which would have frozen any potential writing or casting work, the pending potential retirement of Michael G. Wilson, the onboarding of a new production partner in Amazon, the production of 2022's Till, the ongoing development of a video game, and then yes, also the production of a new TV show, has kept Eon busy and any potential film project pending.

Think back to the 90s/early aughts of Bond, with regular movie and game production with numerous global marketing/advertising tie-ins and the introduction of... a(n animated) James Bond tv show... I genuinely think the only thing holding Eon back at the moment is the tumultuous industry conditions, and the fact that their professional patience has paid off tremendously for them in the past, so why rush?

But according to this theory the entire motion picture industry would not be producing/releasing any films at the moment. Rush? How many years has it been since the completion of NTTD? Even Ghostbusters has a new film on the horizon, and they just released a new game as well.