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

1141142144146147190

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Agreed. John Glen was a great director with an equally great team behind him. A good action director is what is need as the James Bond films are action films at heart, are they not?

    Not sure I would agree 100% Draggers. I quite like the fact EON are trying to raise the bar in terms of A list talent these days. It's not that the action is amazingly well directed by Glen more that during his era we seemed to have rather more inspired and creative stunts and set pieces.
    That said the Forster experiment was clearly a disaster and Mendes although he really tried during the PTS didn't impress for the rest of the film which I found very light on action.
    The director has to understand that in a Bond film an action sequence has to be given the same respect as a key dramatic scene rather than just being tagged on.

    Of course since Glen it hardly seems a coincidence that the two films that have got the best balance were GE and CR - see the Campbell thread from the other week if you want my critique of Martin's tenure.

    What we really need is a good thriller director and someone like Glen in charge of the second unit.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited September 2013 Posts: 18,281
    Dragonpol wrote:
    Agreed. John Glen was a great director with an equally great team behind him. A good action director is what is need as the James Bond films are action films at heart, are they not?

    Not sure I would agree 100% Draggers. I quite like the fact EON are trying to raise the bar in terms of A list talent these days. It's not that the action is amazingly well directed by Glen more that during his era we seemed to have rather more inspired and creative stunts and set pieces.
    That said the Forster experiment was clearly a disaster and Mendes although he really tried during the PTS didn't impress for the rest of the film which I found very light on action.
    The director has to understand that in a Bond film an action sequence has to be given the same respect as a key dramatic scene rather than just being tagged on.

    Of course since Glen it hardly seems a coincidence that the two films that have got the best balance were GE and CR - see the Campbell thread from the other week if you want my critique of Martin's tenure.

    What we really need is a good thriller director and someone like Glen in charge of the second unit.

    I concede the point to you, Ice, and I suppose that 7-Up director Michael Apted's TWINE would be a relatively recent example of tagged on and requisite action sequences in a James Bond film. In the drama-Bonds it's nice to have some time to breathe and for character development just like in OHMSS and as you point out, GE and CR.

    And yes, we need A list directors to make good drama-Bonds for sure. I'm all for that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited September 2013 Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 252</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>A modern Q should be more of a computer expert than an electromechanics technician.</b></font>
  • Posts: 2,402
    Why not both? Semi-agree. Modern relevancy dictates a truth to the thesis but I find the gadgets (so long as they aren't overdone) to be fun. Whishaw will be brilliant if he's given a Q Branch to show off in.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    No, audiences want the gadgets, even if it's just a gun and a radio, they still have more visual impact than a room full of computer screens. I agree that computers will have to be used more in the Q scenes to reflect our modern world, but unless we have more of the 'hands on' technical gadgets we could end up with Q scenes no different from the monitor gazing scenes of 24, Spooks and the countless other entries in the spy related genre.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    He should excel in both fields. So disagree. Having him mostly in front of a computer screen would be a bit boring in the long run.
  • retrokittyretrokitty The Couv
    Posts: 380
    Disagree. Computer experts are different from engineers/inventors. We need to see both for a realistic movie - computers are everywhere. I would rather this new Moneypenny be the Q sidekick and be the computer wiz than be Bond sidekick.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    Ideally, a modern Q should excel in all areas that could aid Mi6 agents: the latest technology in all fields, just about. Computers, electromechanics, weaponry, you name it. So I disagree.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,584
    I agree. And by agreeing, I mean I agree with my fellow agents in disagreeing with the thesis. As Q himself said, every now and then a trigger has to be pulled, and who else is going to provide Bond with the weaponry he needs?. They can hardly introduce an additional lab assistant for this (bring back R- and we discover 'R' is actually short for armourer...) No, there's only one Q, and ideally, he should be at the top of his game in all relevant areas, computer tech guy and armourer to MI6.
  • Disagree with thesis, Q branch should indeed excel in all areas such as computers as well as field tools that include gadgets and armo(u)ry.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 252</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>A modern Q should be more of a computer expert than an electromechanics technician.</b></font>

    Disagree. He should be talented at being able to know and do both. Bond adapts to life and what he has to know and be capable of? No reason why Q cannot be the same.
  • Yes I think so

    As Bond moves with the times, and technologies move with the times, it's all cell phones and information technology today so a Llewelyn type Q seems archaic and outdated by comparison. Recent Bond releases have focused on the computer age side of things so maybe it's imperative they bring in someone with the expertise to see things through. The days of explosive alarm clocks and explosive pens would seem a thing of the past, as adhered to in the most recent release. Computers would seem the way ahead from this standpoint
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Q should be more the representative of Q branch. beeing able to explain the gadgets an computer stuff, not necesseraly beeing able to come up with all the solutions himelf.
  • Posts: 7,653
    A modern Q should fit in the storyline so he adds something otherwise I do not care.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 253</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Audiences have always been more forgiving towards the flaws in the Connery Bond films than towards those in the other actors' films.</b></font>
  • Posts: 2,402
    I'm mixed on this one. I want to say yes for the general public but no for the hardcore Bond fans.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I am NOT SURE what you mean with this thesis.
  • Posts: 2,402
    He means that people often overlook flaws in the Connery films because it's Connery and not, say, Lazenby or Dalton.
  • retrokittyretrokitty The Couv
    Posts: 380
    I think that statement is true. There is so much to complain about with YOLT and DAF. And though some do put them where they belong, most, in public and on the forums, still rank those higher than, say, OHMSS, TLD, LTK and GE... All of which I'd see a dozen times over once for YOLT and DAF.

    And so many, even hardcore fans, go on about Goldfinger. It's a great looking film but when last I saw it, I was struck by how boring it is. Connery strolls through it.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 5,634
    Strange thesis, and one that demands a certain level of thought

    The biggest mistake Connery made as James Bond was not stepping down after Thunderball in '65. I couldn't find any flaws in Dr No or From Russia With Love, they wee both superlative releases and Connery could do no wrong, but Goldfinger really was a letdown for some, before he got back some of his former stature in Thunderball

    I think when later actors came along, such as George and Moore, Dalton etc, they had a certain path to follow, or standard to live up to, only Dalton was able to stand on the same plateau - something that still stands true even to this day - and they were perhaps more open to criticism than the first actor. Hope this makes sense !

    Reading through it again, would have to agree with thesis this time. Connery did have a little more room to maneuver in the mistakes department than those that came later
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Well when it comes to continuety errors and the like, the public in general have become less forgiving. These mistakes were made in all 60's films. However, I think there's much to say for the theory that Conners, as the first and 'true' Bond, also comes away with far more then just the era's flaws. Goldfinger has been mentioned, as has DAF and YOLT. These films were surely not as good as later entries, even from the Moore era, yet are ranked by many quite high.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Agreed. Especially when people rank the films based on only one criteria - the actor who plays James Bond.
  • Posts: 7,653
    pachazo wrote:
    Agreed. Especially when people rank the films based on only one criteria - the actor who plays James Bond.

    Absolutely true

    Connery - God
    Lazenby - Australian
    Moore - Saint
    Dalton - WHO?
    Brosnan - Suavy
    Craig - Blond Thug



    :!! ;)
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 253</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Audiences have always been more forgiving towards the flaws in the Connery Bond films than towards those in the other actors' films.</b></font>

    Kind of on the fence with this one really? But I think he does however others have flaws too.
  • Posts: 2,402
    SaintMark wrote:
    pachazo wrote:
    Agreed. Especially when people rank the films based on only one criteria - the actor who plays James Bond.

    Absolutely true

    Connery - God
    Lazenby - Australian
    Moore - Saint
    Dalton - WHO?
    Brosnan - Suavy
    Craig - Blond Thug



    :!! ;)

    I agree 100% except I find it's more like this:

    Connery - DA BES JAYMES BUND EVURRRR ND IF U DISAGREEE UR NOT A REEL JAYMES BUND FAN HURRDURR
    Lazenby - That guy who only did one
    Moore - Saint
    Dalton - Terrible even though I've probably never seen TLD or LTK
    Brosnan - OMG AMAYZIIIINNNG, CAN DO NO WRONG
    Craig - EWW HE'S BLOND HE SUCKS AS JAMES BOND FOR REASONS THAT HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HIS PORTRAYAL AND INSTEAD ONE MINOR PHYSICAL THING

    Basically.
  • Posts: 1,497
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 253</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Audiences have always been more forgiving towards the flaws in the Connery Bond films than towards those in the other actors' films.</b></font>

    True, when it comes to Connery films to Moore films. For some reason the duck hat, death by top hat, ejector seats, rocketeer suit, Colonel Jacques Bouvar in drag, is more forgivable than the gags in the Moore films. Maybe because Moore films are lighter faire all around, the silliness is more pronounced.

    But I would say that the gags in Moore films make more sense than seeing them in Connery films, since at least in the Moore films the tone is even throughout, whereas with the Connery films, there is more of a serious tone, but with the odd silly moment.

  • edited October 2013 Posts: 11,189
    I think Connery does get off quite easy at times compared to the others (that said most of his films are from the Golden Age of Bond). The majority of the population still see him as the best James Bond and the one who defined the role.

    On the whole I'd probably agree.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 253</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Audiences have always been more forgiving towards the flaws in the Connery Bond films than towards those in the other actors' films.</b></font>

    Agree. TB, and its huge box office, is a prime example. A decent first hour but a total mess thereafter.
  • I'm surprised that people here seem to think the general public has such a low opinion of Craig. Pre-Casino Royale, sure, but almost everybody's loved him since then, in my experience.

    Anyway, I'll say yes to this thesis. Although they deserve it, in a sense, since they were the innovators and the cinema zeitgeist. The series has reacted since the Moore era, with rare exception. Not complaining, that's just the way of the world.
  • Posts: 2,402
    So many idiots bash Craig amongst the GP. They never have a defense either.
Sign In or Register to comment.