›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…117118120122123…190

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,385
    Agree. If the individual shots in QoS were as beautiful as those in SF, the editor might have felt compelled not to put them in a blender...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 196</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>DAD would be respected more in a vacuum rather than within the Bond franchise.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited January 2013 Posts: 13,356
    Well had it been film number one of an intended series it could have gone either way as to whether another was made, a little like xXx I believe.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Disagree. In respect to the amount of poor CGI in the movie which did not help at all.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    Disagree, if it hadn't been a Bondfilm it would have done a lot worse. The series is the only reason why it got seen so often
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    Disagree unless the film was called "Spot the 007 Reference"
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 197</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Dalton's films were the least superficial, most character driven Bond films since OHMSS.</b></font>
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    Up until then, yes.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    At that time, of course.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Yes, and they still are.

    Thesis #197: Agree.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    MajorDSmythe wrote:
    Yes, and they still are.

    This.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    I can't argue with this though I'm sure many will make a strong case for Casino Royale and Skyfall since then.
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    CommanderRoss wrote:
    Up until then, yes.
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    At that time, of course.
    Agreed here.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,385
    Agree. I'd even venture to say that TLD's first twenty minutes are the best adaptation of Fleming in the entire series.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Last thesis is spot on, although Craig also deserves a mention with his recent endeavors. But Dalton's tenure simply screamed character
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Glad to read so much love for Dalton here. ;-) I'm still convinced his Bonds were a breath of fresh air after layers of dust had settled down on the series. It's a crime - yes, a crime - that the third Dalton Bond was aborted due to legal and financial issues. This crippled the series beyond belief.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 197</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Dalton's films were the least superficial, most character driven Bond films since OHMSS.</b></font>

    Agree. Obviously now though we have DC.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2013 Posts: 24,257
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 198</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>George Lazenby didn't believe Bond had a future when he played him.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    I'd say so. Well Ronan O'Reilly didn't. Still a sore subject, even today. :(
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 198</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>George Lazenby didn't believe Bond had a future when he played him.</b></font>

    Disagree. Only because his agent had a major influence over him!
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    I believe in interviews he always says that "I thought it was over." As a matter of fact I seem to recall an Mi6 member getting the opportunity to speak with him about this recently....

    Anyway, of course he did. Perhaps his agent convinced him, but Lazenby must have thought Bond didn't have a future. Otherwise, why walk away from the role?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    SJK91 wrote:
    Otherwise, why walk away from the role?

    Because you sign a contract with Ronan O'Reilly, must do as he instructs and can't get out of it. At the last moment, Lazenby did want more Bond but by that time it was too late.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Who is to say? The only one that can weigh in on this thesis is the man himself.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    But Lazenby's agent talked to him after the release of OHMSS though ? What I will say is, George did a decent enough job as Bond in '69, especially as an, at the time unknown Australian model taking the part after Connery. It was only of course on the ill advised suggestion by his then agent that he should step down from the part, which in hindsight, was an unfortunate decision, as I think he would of worked for Diamonds

    Thesis is wrong, as Lazenby didn't think that at time of release. It was his agent getting involved that ultimately took George away from the part, or who felt that Bond at the time was running out of ideas. I can't look beyond that as the end reason by Lazenby didn't get to do another adventure
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    Obviously only Lazenby himself can answer this, but I do think it's the case. In any event, I think he did well in OHMSS, but I'm not quite sure he could have pulled off another one. It might just as well have been the end of the series, in two more films..
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 199</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Skyfall demonstrates that there was never any justified reason to leave Q out of Craig's first two 'serious' films.</b></font>
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 199</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Skyfall demonstrates that there was never any justified reason to leave Q out of Craig's first two 'serious' films.</b></font>

    I never understood the reason to reboot the series anyhow.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agree. They could've easily introduced him in CR with him just giving Bond his gun or someting.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited January 2013 Posts: 11,139
    I disagree. CR/QoS were essentially character studies of Bond himself. That was the objective of those movies, peeling back the layers and to explore who Bond is. We know who Q is, we know what he does but Q represents a tradition, a formula that has reassurances of what film you're watching and at the releases of CR and QoS that's not what the producers were aiming for. Omitting characters like Q helped to create a stark contrast between Craig's first 2 movies and everything that came before it. Establishing a sense of progression in which the characters could be tweaked to comfortably fit within this rebooted era was something that had to be done and did happen and Q's introduction in SF was great because he is a well known character and was able to live upto a far more fitting dynamic for Craig's Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I disagree. There was no reason to have them, and the intros in Skyfall (of Q and MP) are more than worth it.
Sign In or Register to comment.