›

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

13567…190

Comments

  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    It depends. I think that worked better in the Connery/Lazenby era when they went FRWL/GF/TB/YOLT/OHMSS/DAF with each film being directed by someone different than the director before it. However, I kind of liked it when a certain sense of style and continuity came in the Moore and Dalton eras where directors would all do at least 2 in a row. I think the constant changing of directors in the Brosnan and Craig eras can lead to a schizophrenic sense of style and continuity, most obvious in CR/QOS.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    I believe that this is a valid statement. There are several different directing styles, ones which the Bond directors have experimented with each in their own fashion and manner. Terrence Young, Peter Hunt, Martin Campbell, and Marc Forster looked to the more serious sides of the 007 world, playing such powerful death scenes in Quarrel, Kerim Bey, Tracy, Vesper, and Mathis. Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert, and Lee Tamahori focused more on Bond's adventure side, directing the more goofy, light-hearted movies like GF, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, and DAD. Then there are John Glen, Roger Spottiswoode, and Michael Apted that played both sides of the coin, giving us a balanced Bond movie whihc has both light-hearted adventure and serious moments. If the Bond movies were to have just one director the whole way through, say if Terrence Young continued, we wouldn't have any variety in the movies, thus sticking only one specific style of directing, and not making any progress.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited December 2011 Posts: 15,715
    I agree with PKK - the run of different directors from FRWL to DAF worked really well, because not only each director brought in their own style, which made each film different, but at the same time the movies were similar, so you had a sense of continuity and diversity in style at the same time... Whereas from GE to QOS, the movies are just too different, no continuity in style, as if each new director disregarded what the previous one had done. GE is totally different from the action film TND to the more dramatic TND to the sci-fi OTT DAD to the more serious and gritty CR to the wall-to-wall action QOS... Yes DAF is different from OHMSS, TB is not FRWL, GF is not YOLT, but the continuity and style diversity just went hand-in-hand so well.
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    I cannot decide for sure one way or the other...it really depends on the director, I suppose. (A middle of the road answer, I know.) Terence Young, I think, was the best director of the franchise and I would have loved if he was able to do more. That being said, John Glen hung around for far too long. (Although I find TLD to be his best film bar none.)

    I also have to agree with @DaltonCraig007 in the above post. Even though the directors brought some new things, all the early Bond films felt like they were part of the same franchise, Lazenby included. (Despite having Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt directing various films.) And I do agree with him once again that the newer films vary a little more. I'm not so sure that is a detriment, though. All the Mission: Impossible films are quite different from one another and I've always kind of liked that. I've liked the variety of the Bond franchise in general, just watch From Russia With Love and Moonraker back to back. It is admittedly hard picturing these two films being part of the same film series, but alas, they are. Although it sometimes does not work, I've liked the variety of Bond films over the last 50 years.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    changing directors so regularly has damaged stylistic continuity and prevented any one director fully getting to grips with the series. i think we saw the benefit with cr of having someone at the helm with previous experience. that said, having two or three directors who rotate might be no bad thing and perhaps a more realistic approach in this day and age. i am hoping mendes delivers the goods on sf but cannot see him becoming a series regular.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    It depends on how the director treats the series. There are brilliant directors, like Terence and Martin, and then utterly horrible directors, like Tamahori. It is a question of how well the director handles Bond as a character and how he infuses the film with that Bond feel without suffering quality. I am glad we have had repeat directors. Terence gave us the best of the classic Bonds with DN, FRWL, and TB. The best of Connery in my opinion. With Campbell we have a great director who can do Bond intros well whenever a new actor comes around. Maybe it is just luck, but either way, he allowed Brosnan to have GE, his only "hit" Bond film(in my opinion), and brought the beautiful and spectacular CR to life.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Correct me if I am wrong but at least one of the repeat directors (Glen?) was born out of working on the series in another capacity previously. This apprenticeship approach seemed to work well and helped ensure a strong stylistic continuity.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2011 Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Correct me if I am wrong but at least one of the repeat directors (Glen?) was born out of working on the series in another capacity previously. This apprenticeship approach seemed to work well and helped ensure a strong stylistic continuity.
    According to Wikipedia Glen worked as film editor and second unit director on OHMSS, TSWLM, and MR before going on to direct his respective Bond pictures.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Correct me if I am wrong but at least one of the repeat directors (Glen?) was born out of working on the series in another capacity previously. This apprenticeship approach seemed to work well and helped ensure a strong stylistic continuity.
    According to Wikipedia Glen worked as film editor and second unit director on OHMSS, TSWLM, and MR before going on to direct his respective Bond pictures.

    There u go. May be we should be looking to second unit guys to eventually become helmers.

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Well that certainly didn't work well in the Brosnan era.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Well that certainly didn't work well in the Brosnan era.

    Am I missing something? That is not what happened in the Brosnan era tho. Brosnan got a constantly changing series of arthouse and documentary directors.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    SJK91 wrote:
    I've liked the variety of the Bond franchise in general, just watch From Russia With Love and Moonraker back to back. It is admittedly hard picturing these two films being part of the same film series, but alas, they are.

    Not as hard for me. Both are set partially in Venice, both feature a flotilla chase, both have the same 3 MI6 office regulars(Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Desmond Llewellyn), both have Bond battle the main henchman in the PTS, both scored by John Barry including the first time and last time his "007" theme would be used in the series. Both in my top 5 or 6 007 films.

  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    PrinceKamalKhan wrote:
    SJK91 wrote:
    I've liked the variety of the Bond franchise in general, just watch From Russia With Love and Moonraker back to back. It is admittedly hard picturing these two films being part of the same film series, but alas, they are.

    Not as hard for me. Both are set partially in Venice, both feature a flotilla chase, both have the same 3 MI6 office regulars(Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Desmond Llewellyn), both have Bond battle the main henchman in the PTS, both scored by John Barry including the first time and last time his "007" theme would be used in the series. Both in my top 5 or 6 007 films.
    Haha, touche PKK ;)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Consistency is good, and needed, but too much (Glen) or too little (the films from GoldenEye onwards) can be bad in the long run.

    The Bond series is still alive though, so why do I know? Maybe it doesn't matter at all.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Consistency is good, and needed, but too much (Glen) or too little (the films from GoldenEye onwards) can be bad in the long run.

    The Bond series is still alive though, so why do I know? Maybe it doesn't matter at all.
    Oh, it matters my friend:
    lee-tamahori-0.jpg
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    tamahori. what a shocker. how did he get the job?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    tamahori. what a shocker. how did he get the job?

    Not sure, but his directing Bio is one of the worst in cinema. His recent efforts, xXx: State of the Union, and Next were utter crap, and the first film listed under his "Know For" section on IMdB is none other than the dungiest of the dung, DAD. Tisk tisk. Thank God this man didn't get the chance to direct any more Bond films. He would've ruined the franchise.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Getafix wrote:
    tamahori. what a shocker. how did he get the job?
    I think beocuse of Once Were Worriors and What Becomes Of The Broken Hearted?. Both excellent, dark and gritty films. I think the producers must have been stunned when they saw DAD. It's about as opposite to the avorementioned films as you can get.

    To be honest, I think the changing of directors is a bad thing. If you've got a good director, keep him/her! Terence Young is the best example. The only film of the four first he didn't do is very much the lesser one. I know many think of Goldfinger as being the epitome Bondfilm, I think it's the first of a long line of mediocre run-of-the-mill interpretations.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    i know it's probably going to cause ww3 but thunderball is one of the duds in my opinion. gf is obviously a classic.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 005</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>George Lazenby should have done at least one more Bond film after OHMSS.</b></font>
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Agreed! As I have never been a huge fan of DAF I believe a second film would have developed his confidence and we would have probaly seen a more faithful follow-up.

    Even George himself said he should have done two.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    Yes, but they should have tried to make the film in 1970, so we wouldn't miss Connery's DAF in 1971... then Moore would take over in 1973. Yes for a 2nd Lazenby film, but NO to miss out Connery's DAF and Moore's 7 films.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Yes, but they should have tried to make the film in 1970, so we wouldn't miss Connery's DAF in 1971... then Moore would take over in 1973. Yes for a 2nd Lazenby film, but NO to miss out Connery's DAF and Moore's 7 films.

    This is interesting, friend, for it reflects entirely my own sentiments. It's the same thing with Moore. Would I have wanted to see Connery as Bond a few films more? Yes, I certainly would but I wouldn't have wanted to miss out on anything Moore did. Good point!

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Regarding Connery I personally think by the time he did DAF his time in the role was up. It was clear he was getting tired of the role (his performance isn't bad but his previous sentiments give us an insight into his thoughts) and physically he wasn't in the shape he once was.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Regarding Connery I personally think by the time he did DAF his time in the role was up. It was clear he was getting tired of the role (his performance isn't bad but his previous sentiments give us an insight into his thoughts) and physically he wasn't in the shape he once was.

    Connery was having bucket loads of fun in DAF... his enthusiasm really fills the entire screen and the audience, who all have big smiles on their faces and have a splendid 2 hours viewing... so I disagree with you BAIN, I always thought Connery was having the time of his life in DAF, much like Moore in MR...

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Regarding Connery I personally think by the time he did DAF his time in the role was up. It was clear he was getting tired of the role (his performance isn't bad but his previous sentiments give us an insight into his thoughts) and physically he wasn't in the shape he once was.

    Connery was having bucket loads of fun in DAF... his enthusiasm really fills the entire screen and the audience, who all have big smiles on their faces and have a splendid 2 hours viewing... so I disagree with you BAIN, I always thought Connery was having the time of his life in DAF, much like Moore in MR...

    He was probably having fun because he was allowed to do what he wanted. The conditions were on his terms. I suspect he wasn't especially keen to do a seventh outing.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    BAIN123 wrote:
    He was probably having fun because he was allowed to do what he wanted. The conditions were on his terms. I suspect he wasn't especially keen to do a seventh outing.

    I didn't mention a 7th outing - I was just disagreeing with you... IMO Connery wasn't tired of the role in DAF... if anything DAF is one of his best performance, closely matching FRWL and TB.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,134
    A second film with Lazenby either taking DAF, and making it a much more revenge fueled film, and doing away with the need to bring back Connery. (After all, if Lazenby did make a second, there would be no need to lure Connery back to a role, he didn't want to play. It's just UA offered him a deal he wouldn't refuse.) Or simply coming up with an as then unused Fleming novel to film.
    I think George might have made a good Bond in a more faithful adaptation of TMWTGG. Something far grittier than the EON effort. But yes to Lazers returning after Majesty's. A missed opportunity.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    Benny wrote:
    I think George might have made a good Bond in a more faithful adaptation of TMWTGG

    OH M GEE !! TMWTGG as it is now with Sir Rog is the best Bond film !! How dare you replace Moore with someone else ?? :-??
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,173
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    Benny wrote:
    I think George might have made a good Bond in a more faithful adaptation of TMWTGG

    OH M GEE !! TMWTGG as it is now with Sir Rog is the best Bond film !! How dare you replace Moore with someone else ?? :-??

    A more faithful adaptation of the novel would have resulted in a different film entirely, DC. ;-)

Sign In or Register to comment.