It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
<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.
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move with the times, it's all cell phones and information technology today so a Llewelyn type Q seems archaic and outdated by comparison.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
<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>
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.
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
Absolutely true
Connery - God
Lazenby - Australian
Moore - Saint
Dalton - WHO?
Brosnan - Suavy
Craig - Blond Thug
:!! ;)
Kind of on the fence with this one really? But I think he does however others have flaws too.
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.
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.
On the whole I'd probably agree.
Agree. TB, and its huge box office, is a prime example. A decent first hour but a total mess thereafter.
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.