›

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

1…142143145147148…190

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited October 2013 Posts: 41,011
    SaintMark wrote:
    I am NOT SURE what you mean with this thesis.

    Sir, you're going to make me avoid the forums if I have to worry about Pennywise staring at me for the next few weeks. ;-)
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Pennywise is one of the most iconic creations ever, he made me mistrust clowns forever. He is as iconic as 007 so hence his appearance.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I would have to say I agree with this one.

    Connery seems to have this mythic status as the perfect embodiment of Bond with critics, the public and fans that is unshakeable despite a tenure which is mixed to say the least.

    DN and FRWL he pretty much smashes it out of the park as Ian Fleming's James Bond but from there on its an increasingly slippery slope.

    In GF he starts the trick he perfected for the rest of his career of just playing Sean Connery and this got more pronounced with every Bond film that went on. It's fair to say that this portrayal was what the public wanted and went some way to helping the series survive but at the same time it set out the cliched 'movie Bond' template which went on until 2006.

    I certainly think that if Craig reaches the heights of CR and SF in his last two films then he should ursurp Connery's untouchable crown as best Bond ever.

    However I'm not really answering the question here more criticising Connery's portrayal.

    I don't think there are many flaws in DN and FRWL (back projection, the hand waving goodbye to the reel of film) when compared to the Rog or Brozza eras so they can't be accused 'of getting away with it' but from GF on flaws do creep in that, were they in someone else's tenure, would be seized upon.

    GF - Iconic moments about but a lot of it is very silly. I find the whole putting the town to sleep scene excruciatingly embarrassing the way everyone just topples over. If this had been in a Brosnan film it would get hammered.

    TB - Extremely shoddy editing and continuity and, Fiona apart, some pretty feeble acting all layered lovingly on top of an over bloated snooze fest of a plot. Yet it is heralded by many as a classic because it was made in the 60's. I'll take 5 of Moore's films and 3 of Brosnan's over it to be honest.

    YOLT & DAF - Where to start with these? Turning Japanese, total disregard of the physics of spacecraft design (which its ok to shit on MR for), Blofeld in drag, elephants winning on slot machines, moon buggies etc
    It should also be noted that it is these two films which Austin Powers borrows heaviest from not the Moore era.

    The Connery era is remembered as some sort of Harold Macmillan 'youve never had it so good' salad days when overall to my mind only half of it really deserves to go down as classic. But other actor's reigns seem to be pulled apart for every tiny error.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    @TheWizardOfIce, a delightfully insightful post, sir. The wizard strikes again! :-)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    The following thesis can be broken down into two separate theses:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 254</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF has A) more plot flaws than QOS, B) despite a better overall story.</b></font>
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    If I was to look at the things that didn't make sense about SF, or what might be seen as plot holes, then I think I would agree with both A and B. I'm one of the rare few who loved QoS, but in terms of story, SF has it beat in that department. However, there were many things that irked me about SF in regards to plot holes or scenes that just didn't make sense to me whatsoever, such as the highly discussed Silva escape scene.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think Skyfall at times runs into complications by being a bit too interpretive at moments, as with Silva's escape where more questions are provided than answers. The whole act of suspending your disbelief would need to be utilized during that sequence to a hefty degree, something that doesn't fit that well within the style of the Craig Bond era.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I would have to agree. SF is a very entertaining ride but certain things just don't add up if you really start to think about it. The characters and overall story are better than QoS though.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2013 Posts: 6,382
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    I would have to say I agree with this one.

    Connery seems to have this mythic status as the perfect embodiment of Bond with critics, the public and fans that is unshakeable despite a tenure which is mixed to say the least.

    DN and FRWL he pretty much smashes it out of the park as Ian Fleming's James Bond but from there on its an increasingly slippery slope.

    In GF he starts the trick he perfected for the rest of his career of just playing Sean Connery and this got more pronounced with every Bond film that went on. It's fair to say that this portrayal was what the public wanted and went some way to helping the series survive but at the same time it set out the cliched 'movie Bond' template which went on until 2006.

    I certainly think that if Craig reaches the heights of CR and SF in his last two films then he should ursurp Connery's untouchable crown as best Bond ever.

    However I'm not really answering the question here more criticising Connery's portrayal.

    I don't think there are many flaws in DN and FRWL (back projection, the hand waving goodbye to the reel of film) when compared to the Rog or Brozza eras so they can't be accused 'of getting away with it' but from GF on flaws do creep in that, were they in someone else's tenure, would be seized upon.

    GF - Iconic moments about but a lot of it is very silly. I find the whole putting the town to sleep scene excruciatingly embarrassing the way everyone just topples over. If this had been in a Brosnan film it would get hammered.

    TB - Extremely shoddy editing and continuity and, Fiona apart, some pretty feeble acting all layered lovingly on top of an over bloated snooze fest of a plot. Yet it is heralded by many as a classic because it was made in the 60's. I'll take 5 of Moore's films and 3 of Brosnan's over it to be honest.

    YOLT & DAF - Where to start with these? Turning Japanese, total disregard of the physics of spacecraft design (which its ok to shit on MR for), Blofeld in drag, elephants winning on slot machines, moon buggies etc
    It should also be noted that it is these two films which Austin Powers borrows heaviest from not the Moore era.

    The Connery era is remembered as some sort of Harold Macmillan 'youve never had it so good' salad days when overall to my mind only half of it really deserves to go down as classic. But other actor's reigns seem to be pulled apart for every tiny error.

    Really great post, as usual, Wizard. I especially like your observation that by GF, Connery was just playing "Connery." I think he was better directed in DN and FRWL.

    Obviously they had to film TB for '65 in order to defuse McClory, but I wonder if Young would rather have tackled one of the other novels.
    DarthDimi wrote:
    The following thesis can be broken down into two separate theses:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 254</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF has A) more plot flaws than QOS, B) despite a better overall story.</b></font>

    Agree with A) simply because Silva's plan is so diffuse. Not sure which has the better story: I definitely think SF has better set pieces (Bond off a step, everything in Asia) but the M/revenge story does at times feel like "been there, done that" (even though TWINE is a weaker film than SF). QoS meanders and I never really bought why everyone ended up in the desert but the eco-storyline feels fresher, if undercooked.

    On balance, agree with A) and disagree with B).
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Quantum of Solace doesn't have a plot. It's just an asinine mess of an idea that someone wants to control and raise the prices of water in Bolivia. Only Craig himself, rises above the general stupidity of it all and makes it (almost) worthwhile

    Skyfall, although not without it's nonsense either, at least seems more plausible, as a former MI6 agent wants revenge on those he sees fit in doing him wrong. Skyfall is by far the better of the two releases and has a more coherent plot with it, so going against thesis on this one
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited October 2013 Posts: 14,680
    Agree with thesis A. I can't think of any QoS plot holes off the top of my head right now, but like everyone here, I can list quite a few flaws in SF.

    Regarding thesis B- what constitutes a better overall story? I respect QoS for having a more worldly plot with the water control and destabilizing governments, but I tend to find it boring when compared to SF's (or any other Bond film, for that matter). We've got 007 getting shot/rising up again and M's demise around a typical story of a stolen macguffin and a villain's revenge, which just seems more Bondian to me- and a hell of a lot more engaging. Thesis B also gets my vote.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Actually, I think QoS has one of the best stories, at least in part, of the series. In under just two hours the film paints one of the most beautiful pictures of human grief and its various stages through Bond that I have ever laid my eyes on. Its immaculate and touching presentation that sees Bond take center stage in the action as a figure worthy of a deep character study is only one of the many reasons why I hail it as one of the best films in the franchise.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,537
    RE: SF has A) more plot flaws than QOS, B) despite a better overall story.

    Agree with ''A'', disagree with ''B''

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2013 Posts: 13,356
    echo wrote:
    Obviously they had to film TB for '65 in order to defuse McClory, but I wonder if Young would rather have tackled one of the other novels.

    Not all at. His three favourite novels were Thunderball, then From Russia With Love and thirdly Dr. No. The three he filmed but in reverse order.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited October 2013 Posts: 3,494
    DarthDimi wrote:
    The following thesis can be broken down into two separate theses:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 254</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF has A) more plot flaws than QOS, B) despite a better overall story.</b></font>

    Thesis A- disagree and mostly because there's a big difference for me between flaws and gaping holes. Aside from how poorly plotted the sequence between Silva's escape and Bond's pursuit was done, I didn't have a whole lot of problems with the film that the crowd who watches those "things that were wrong" features (my daughter hates those even worse since her precious Hunger Games was found to be even more flawed than Skyfall) loves to hang their hat on.

    Thesis B- Agree. The plot of Skyfall is much more entertaining than that of QOS. Greene's water plot doesn't carry nearly the sense of menace and danger than Silva's plan to humiliate MI6 and then kill M does.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 255</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore had better comic timing than Connery but less funny lines to work with.</b></font>
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    Agree with the first half, disagree with the second. Moore certainly had the best comedic timing although Connery wasn't too shabby either. But to say he had less funny lines makes no sense. Moore had a punchline for every step he took it seemed. I'm sure if you compared, say, DAF vs. TMWTGG Moore would have way more funny lines.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited October 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Disagree. He had better comedic timing and his lines were just as, if not more, funnier than Connery's.

    "Keeping the British end up sir"
    "That'll keep you in curry for a few weeks"
    "I'm now aiming precisely at your groin, so speak now, or forever hold your piece"
    "Fill her up please"
    "I didn't recognise you with your clothes on"
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited October 2013 Posts: 3,494
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 255</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore had better comic timing than Connery but less funny lines to work with.</b></font>

    I feel the same way. Agree that Moore's comedic timing was just as good if not a little bit better than Sir Sean's, and disagree in that Sir Roger had more funny lines to say than any other Bond in series history.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Depends which Connery films we're talking about. Overall Moore has the win both on timing and lines over the course of his films. But if we factor DAF in the mix, I would argue, that film alone had the best lines of the series, and Connery's delivery was priceless.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Actually, I think QoS has one of the best stories, at least in part, of the series. In under just two hours the film paints one of the most beautiful pictures of human grief and its various stages through Bond that I have ever laid my eyes on.

    I agree with this, while i think that QoS is the bane of 007-verse, it is one with a scary plot that says something about the power of cooperations. And yes it takes place in a 3rd world country but it can happen in our world too as it has happened already. Great plot idea, poor execution of a movie by a 2nd rate direcor when it comes to actioners.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    echo wrote:
    Obviously they had to film TB for '65 in order to defuse McClory, but I wonder if Young would rather have tackled one of the other novels.

    Not all at. His three favourite novels were Thunderball, then From Russia With Love and thirdly Dr. No. The three he filmed but in reverse order.

    And Thunderball was the one he wanted to film first, I believe.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Right but was glad looking back, it didn't happen as in his words it would've looked cheap. I think he was right, too.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    The following thesis can be broken down into two separate theses:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 254</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>SF has A) more plot flaws than QOS, B) despite a better overall story.</b></font>

    Undecided on this one for some reason? Don't know why though?

    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 255</b></font>


    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore had better comic timing than Connery but less funny lines to work with.</b></font>

    Disagree. I found both of them very humerous but in different ways.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2013 Posts: 24,256
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 256</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>George Lazenby physically resembled Connery's Bond more in '69 than did Brosnan in '95.</b></font>
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    I'm afraid I don't understand. Are we talking about their physical appearance, their performances, or something else? And does it mean that in 1995, Lazenby resembled Connery more than Brosnan did, or does it mean that Lazenby in 1969 resembled Connery more than Brosnan did 1995?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    @Soundofthesinners: well spotted, sir! I've added details to the thesis. ;-)
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Disagree. The only actor to physically resemble another is Pierce Brosnan for looking similar to Timothy Dalton. Aside from Having Brown eyes, Lazenby never really looked anything like Sean.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    Thank you for the clarification. In that case, I guess I'll agree, but I don't think either really resembles him all that much. It might just be that Lazenby was in the same era as Connery.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    In a way Connery's catlike way of moving was indeed shadowed by Lazenby's movement who also had the appearance of being able to jump into action at the drop of a hat. Both men were physically imposing. So YES.
Sign In or Register to comment.