›

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

1…121122124126127…190

Comments

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    On thesis 204: Agree! Bond really got cinema going i reckon! :D
    Thesis 205: Disagree. It was a film too many for my beloved Mr Moore.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 2013 Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 206</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In TLD, Timothy Dalton registers beautifully on all key counts of charm, machismo, sensitivity and technique. </b></font>
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited April 2013 Posts: 4,813
    THESIS 206 AGREED!!!! But you know me ;)
    Actually, if I could find one fault with Dalton's performance (which he isn't guilty of in LTK as much) it would be that he frequently makes what I call the 'Slingblade face'

    billy-bob-thornton-sling-blade.jpg

    Not a dealbreaker by any means, but noticeable and annoying
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 206</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In TLD, Timothy Dalton registers beautifully on all key counts of charm, machismo, sensitivity and technique. </b></font>

    Definitely Agree!

    Dalton gives one of the most beautifully nuanced performances in Bondian history.

  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    You can't argue with the latest thesis. Dalton was the epitome of how many men aspire to be you could say. Great and memorable performance. Performances even. Thesis is spot on
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 206</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In TLD, Timothy Dalton registers beautifully on all key counts of charm, machismo, sensitivity and technique. </b></font>

    While Dalton might be a technically gifted actor he lackes Charm and the sexual tension all the other actors brought to the role.

    A nice but correctly failed experiment over two movie.

    disagree

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 206</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In TLD, Timothy Dalton registers beautifully on all key counts of charm, machismo, sensitivity and technique. </b></font>

    I would have to agree with this thesis. It's all there up on the screen.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 206</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In TLD, Timothy Dalton registers beautifully on all key counts of charm, machismo, sensitivity and technique. </b></font>

    He brought the right amount of charm, machismo, sensitivity & technique to the role. Agree.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Can't argue with that at all. Agree.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I had to think about this one for a bit just because of the word beautifully. I will agree however. While I've never been Dalton's biggest fan, I do respect him for succeeding in portraying Bond exactly the way he chose to.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Definitely agree on all counts.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 2013 Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 207</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>DAF should have allowed Bond to exact revenge on Blofeld in a more dramatic and fullfilling way. </b></font>
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2013 Posts: 28,694
    What revenge? The film gives us a stupid beginning where Bond doesn't even kill the real Blofeld and we get no deep emotional struggle for Bond or any sense of true revenge, no mention of Tracy at all, and no sign of Bunt. You know, the one who actually killed his wife in the first place!

    The answer to this thesis is so obvious it doesn't deserve a reply, and is why the film will be held in contempt by me for many years to come.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    THESIS 207
    Like Brady said: obvious YES. Whether he was Connery or Lazenby retuning, Bond should have made it his mission to kill Blofeld- period.

    Although there is one thing I never hear get talked about: in DAF, how is there at least no mention of Draco?? What really would have been cool is to see Bond team up with Draco for mutual revenge. Admittedly though, at least as far as action is concerned, I suppose that would have looked too similar to the climax of OHMSS....
    Just a thought though.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    THESIS 207
    Like Brady said: obvious YES. Whether he was Connery or Lazenby retuning, Bond should have made it his mission to kill Blofeld- period.

    Although there is one thing I never hear get talked about: in DAF, how is there at least no mention of Draco?? What really would have been cool is to see Bond team up with Draco for mutual revenge. Admittedly though, at least as far as action is concerned, I suppose that would have looked too similar to the climax of OHMSS....
    Just a thought though.

    Yet another awesome idea. Though, if they couldn't even bother to reference Tracy in the film there likely wouldn't have been any note of Draco either.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    edited April 2013 Posts: 1,407
    While I enjoy DAF, we can all agree it is the big missed opportunity of the series. It honestly would have been a great way of saying "look it's the same character" knowing they were only going to have Connery for one more film
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    bondbat007 wrote:
    It honestly would have been a great way of saying "look it's the same character" knowing they were only going to have Connery for one more film
    I'm a firm believer that DAF is the biggest reason the whole 'code name theory' even exists!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    bondbat007 wrote:
    It honestly would have been a great way of saying "look it's the same character" knowing they were only going to have Connery for one more film
    I'm a firm believer that DAF is the biggest reason the whole 'code name theory' even exists!
    I think that's to the credits of CR 67. And indeed, to state the obvious, DAF really should've been a true revenge story, as QoS uses CR's story.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    bondbat007 wrote:
    It honestly would have been a great way of saying "look it's the same character" knowing they were only going to have Connery for one more film
    I'm a firm believer that DAF is the biggest reason the whole 'code name theory' even exists!

    How so?
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    bondbat007 wrote:
    It honestly would have been a great way of saying "look it's the same character" knowing they were only going to have Connery for one more film
    I'm a firm believer that DAF is the biggest reason the whole 'code name theory' even exists!

    How so?

    Because Connery acts like he doesn't care, which is an odd thing to do when fighting the man who killed your wife. Add that to the fact that Lazenby referred to "the other fella," and it sure seems like there are two different people.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    I'm just saying that EON was going into DAF KNOWING that they only had Connery for one more film and that they would have to recast for the next one, so to really drive home the fact of "this is the same character" and to show the audience that, it would have made sense to really have a direct sequel or at the very least, expand the PTS more and make it more rewarding. Bad move by EON on that part
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Why wasn't DAF a sequel to OHMSS? I have always wondered this.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    OHMSS didn't do well at the box office and Broccoli and Saltzman probably figured that people wanted Connery and all kinds of silliness. They did, at the time. DAF grossed almost twice as much as OHMSS.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    They wanted to go back to what made Goldfinger a hit. Hence why they hired Hamilton and Bassey. Also why an original script had Goldfinger's twin as the villain. OHMSS didn't do well in the USA so EON tried to make it appeal to American's as much as possible hence the Vegas location. I swear sometimes I think EON just thinks us American's are stupid (License REVOKED anyone?). But Cubby and Harry agreed that they couldn't continue down the OHMSS road. Just imagine if Lazenby would have signed the 7 movie contract or if OHMSS had done better at the box office. The ultimate "what if" scenario
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Or, so they were sellouts. Good to know...
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Or, so they were sellouts. Good to know...

    Not entirely. They had good sense to go back to basics after Moonraker and Die Another Day even though those made money.

    But at any rate, they were in charge of the biggest film franchise in the world, and they wanted it to succeed. The change left us with 13 more Bond movies over 40 years later. Not a bad tradeoff.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Or, so they were sellouts. Good to know...

    Not entirely. They had good sense to go back to basics after Moonraker and Die Another Day even though those made money.

    But at any rate, they were in charge of the biggest film franchise in the world, and they wanted it to succeed. The change left us with 13 more Bond movies over 40 years later. Not a bad tradeoff.

    They had the idea to bring a Bond of depth back in OHMSS, but that didn't work so we got films leading into all of the 70s and half the 80s where Bond was at times a world renown celebrity figure with about as much depth as a kiddie pool. I'd say they sold out on their vision.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Not going to waste much time tonight but needless to say, the thesis (as mentioned) maybe doesn't even warrant an answer. Blofeld didn't even die in Diamonds are Forever, (or we weren't to know until ten years later), with a bizarre and ill-advised cameo, appearance, in the pre credits sequence of For Your Eyes Only, in a stupid, and devoid of humor, sequence with Roger Moore's Bond. Blofeld should of been dealt with properly in 1971 (with Lazenbys Bond), instead the Australian was persuaded to leave by his excellent agent, Conney came in, purely for the money, made a mess of things, Blofeld (we eventually learn) survives, and re-appears again a decade later in the aforementioned FYEO opening, being dropped down a smoke stack in blatant humorous overtones - that many people actually thought amusing. I couldn't buy into the humor aspect of it. This was the person involved in the death of Bond's nearest and dearest, and they just take a flippant approach with it ?

    Then the page when static and I lost the rest of my work when went to retrieve..

    Bottom line is, of course thesis has it correct. Blofeld should of been killed off once and for all in Diamonds (preferably by George's Bond) but it never occured. It's a pity in retrospect, but there's nothing to be done about it now. Character (Blofeld) survives, (although there's a wait of a whole decade before this comes to light) and finally the demise occurs in quite frankly, absurd and embarrassing circumstances

    As before, real pity, when you look back
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    If it helps, watch the movies in this order YOLT, DAF then OHMSS. After YOLT, Bond had tracked Blofeld down but escaped somehow after DAF so Bond went on vacation, fell in love and fought Blofeld one last time but failed to kill him. Instead Tracy was murdered and Bond didn't get to finish off Blofeld until FYEO. Since that Blofeld had a neck brace, It makes a lot more sense in a sick twisted way.

    YOLT, DAF then OHMSS. Makes much better sense.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Soundofthesinners wrote:
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Or, so they were sellouts. Good to know...

    Not entirely. They had good sense to go back to basics after Moonraker and Die Another Day even though those made money.

    But at any rate, they were in charge of the biggest film franchise in the world, and they wanted it to succeed. The change left us with 13 more Bond movies over 40 years later. Not a bad tradeoff.

    They had the idea to bring a Bond of depth back in OHMSS, but that didn't work so we got films leading into all of the 70s and half the 80s where Bond was at times a world renown celebrity figure with about as much depth as a kiddie pool. I'd say they sold out on their vision.

    Maybe they wanted to balance the silliness with the depth, and knew the audience at that point wanted silliness. Like I said earlier, they still made deeper Bond movies like For Your Eyes Only and some top-flight Bond adventures like The Spy Who Loved Me.
Sign In or Register to comment.