›

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

1…5758606263…190

Comments

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    He made TLD and LTK. So I disagree
  • MrEonMrEon
    Posts: 278
    I've always felt John Glen was a mediocre Director, very rarely did he light up the screen with visually stunning images, when he would very simply position the camera in the safest spot going to captor the going ons!
    He pretty much always surrounded himself with like minded people as well, in the likes of his cinematographers Alan Hume or Alec Mills!! Both of whom never lit up the screen that well!? His best as director are FYEO & TLD!! All the rest are filmed somewhat safely!?

    John Glen's editing is better than his directing and OHMSS is a perfect example of this, although I'd suspect he learnt a lot from Peter Hunt, who was a much better editor turned director. Its a shame Eon didn't give Hunt another chance at Bond, because he certainly made one of the best looking Bond Films ever!?

    Glen for me was a safe pair of hands, and at the time showed off Eon's lack of imagination and vision! "Lets just make em and take the money!?" ..attitude!

    Thankfully now that BB & MGM are free of many of the former Eon traits, they are beginning to make visually better and higher production value films again!
    Which is good ...yes! That 60's vibe once more, Bond with a capital B..... :-B
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    I don't mind Glen when it came to directing. However, his editing job in OHMSS is appalling. I don't care for it at all.

    That's how I feel, the editing in OHMSS is shockinly bad. I much prefer him as director. On saying that, if Dalton had continued in the role into the 1990's, I think it would have been time for a new director.

    Thesis 81: Disagree

  • MrEonMrEon
    Posts: 278
    The Editing in OHMSS is by far not as bad as folks are making out, I hope its the full fat version your all watching and not the early VHS or DVD edits!! The film swings along nicely, and is by far one of the most naturally visual Bond films of the lot! :-B
    Lets think... OK, how about that great fight in the hotel room between Bond and one of Tracy's heavy's!! Great stuff!!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 2012 Posts: 24,161
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 082</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Peter Hunt was a better Bond editor than he was a Bond director.</b></font>
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Nah I'd disagree. He was great at both. The final scene of OHMSS proves that.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    He was excellent at both IMO so would have to disagree.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 082</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Peter Hunt was a better Bond editor than he was a Bond director.</b></font>

    Disagree. While Peter Hunt's editing is superb, he certainly proved himself in the director's chair, especially for Bond. He captured the essense of the original OHMSS Fleming novel, and paced the film well. His work with Lazenby also proved to be a stroke of genius, being able to get an emotional performance out of the actor.

    Now on the other hand, I wouldn't say his directing was better than his editing necessarily, I would just say that he excelled in both.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Disagree. He grew into his own as a director.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    His editing paved theway for his directing. That's how I see it, anyway.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited April 2012 Posts: 3,262
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 082</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Peter Hunt was a better Bond editor than he was a Bond director.</b></font>

    Agree. The Bond film series as a whole wouldn't have been the same without his editing work on the first 5 films. Not to say his work on OHMSS wasn't good but I think his editing work remains his greatest achievement for the series. Indeed, Hunt's "cut to the chase" editing style was revolutionary for all action films, not just Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    More opinions on the matter, folks? :)
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Meh, next ;)
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    Disagree. He was excellent in both roles.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Glen and Hunt take the better director nods.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Hunt did very well in both capacities, OHMSS was a fine adventure, and his editing skills are also something of recognition. I'm going to disagree with the thesis though
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 083</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>After the Craig era, the series will need another four year break (at least) to rebuild interest.</b></font>
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2012 Posts: 15,713
    The main problem will be the new Bond search... IMO the search in itself will be a long one, so whether this thesis is true or not, it doesn't matter - the search for a new actor will by default delay the film.

    But if there was a clear candidate... I think EON and Sony wouldn't waste time for releasing his debute film - it's all about money, and losing 4 years means losing a $500 000 000+ box office revenue. EON doesn't care if there is a need to rebuild interest - they want to collect the half a billion dollars as quick as possible.

    Besides, I don't understand how there would be a need to rebuild interest - a new actor would automaticly rebuild interest by itself.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 083</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>After the Craig era, the series will need another four year break (at least) to rebuild interest.</b></font>

    Not necessarily. It will depend largely on how his remaining Bond films turn out.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited April 2012 Posts: 12,837
    083- Not unless they're crap or if they're box office bombs. If they're good and still making money then they don't need to wait.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Of course not. Dan proved everyone wrong and finally brought fans back to the movies after DAD. Dan will not do a film knowing it is garbage. If his heart isn't in it he won't do it, but if he feels a fervor for it and is excited we'll continue to get great films.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    I don't know if they need 4 years. It didn't take them 4 years after Moore to cast Dalton, but then Cubby always had Dalton in mind, so maybe that's not the best example.

    They should cast the right man for the job for Jimmy #7, if it's to be a another rookie Bond, then cast a younger actor this time.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited April 2012 Posts: 1,778
    I agree. In a way every time a new actor is cast the series gets a reboot of sorts. A longer wait will definatly build more interest. Maybe not 4 years though. 3 years should be sufficient. Maybe if EON had held off a year before debuting Dalton and let the anticipation rise his intro to the series would've made a bigger splash.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    I agree. In a way every time a new actor is cast the series gets a reboot of sorts. A longer will definatly build more interest. Maybe not 4 years though. 3 years should be sufficient. Maybe if EON had held off a year before debuting Dalton and let the anticipation rise his intro to the series would've made a bigger splash.

    But then Dalton would have made only one film.......

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    No, with the cavaet that Craig's last Bond film is not like Brosnan's last Bond film.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    The main problem will be the new Bond search... IMO the search in itself will be a long one, so whether this thesis is true or not, it doesn't matter - the search for a new actor will by default delay the film.

    But if there was a clear candidate... I think EON and Sony wouldn't waste time for releasing his debute film - it's all about money, and losing 4 years means losing a $500 000 000+ box office revenue. EON doesn't care if there is a need to rebuild interest - they want to collect the half a billion dollars as quick as possible.

    Besides, I don't understand how there would be a need to rebuild interest - a new actor would automaticly rebuild interest by itself.

    I totally agree with you! If it takes 3 years to find bond #7 it takes 3 years. If it takes 6 months to find bond #7 it takes 6 months. But a four year gap like we just had it to long!

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited April 2012 Posts: 13,978
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    I agree. In a way every time a new actor is cast the series gets a reboot of sorts. A longer will definatly build more interest. Maybe not 4 years though. 3 years should be sufficient. Maybe if EON had held off a year before debuting Dalton and let the anticipation rise his intro to the series would've made a bigger splash.

    But then Dalton would have made only one film.......

    Why would he make only one film? He'd come back for a second, a third and possibly a fourth maybe even a fifth too (if CR had been aquired and not yet used).
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 2012 Posts: 4,512
    3 years

    Opt1:

    DC:
    Bond 24 - DECEMBER 2014
    Bond 25 - 2016/2017

    Bond 7:
    Bond 26 - 2019/2020
    Bond 27 - 2022

    Opt2:

    DC:
    Bond 24 - DECEMBER 2014
    Bond 25 - 2016/2017
    Bond 26 - 2019/2020

    Bond 7:
    Bond 27 - 2022

    Opt 3:

    DC:
    Bond 24 - DECEMBER 2014

    Bond 7:
    Bond 25 - 2017
    Bond 26 - 2019/2020
    Bond 27 - 2022

    Opt4: But if you aks me there make a Bond spinoff with Judi Dench's M stay central/bridge between Skyfall and Bond 24 named: Master Of Mystery aka MOM aka M - JUNE 2014 directed by Michael Apted followd by Bond 24 for 15/16 December 2015. On this way we wait 1 year longer for Bond 24. This is the only option i whant to wait til 2015 for Bond 24 >

    DC:
    Bond 24 - 15 December 2015 (Uk/VS 16 December)
    Bond 25 - 2017

    Bond 7:
    Bond 26 - 2019/2020
    Bond 27 - 2022

    Bond 25 in 2017 i keep in mind not mean there should let us wait til November/December 2017. If there deside to give us Bond 24 in December 2014 i don't mind to have Bond 25 in July 2017. The same count for 2020 if Bond 25 in July 2017 Bond 26 can be released in November/December 2020.

    Moost inportent be that Bond 24 be released fast after Skyfall like there did with GE-TMND TMND-Twine and CR-QOS if there not going to be spinoff in between. In 2014 it is 6 years since QOS and it is time to see Camile, Mr White and possible also Villiers back and finaly to contune the water/Quantum story.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    I agree. In a way every time a new actor is cast the series gets a reboot of sorts. A longer will definatly build more interest. Maybe not 4 years though. 3 years should be sufficient. Maybe if EON had held off a year before debuting Dalton and let the anticipation rise his intro to the series would've made a bigger splash.

    But then Dalton would have made only one film.......

    Not necessarly. Maybe if Dalton debuted in 1988 audiences would've had more time to get Roger Moore out of their heads and Dalton's Bond would've been better recieved. Plus that would mean LTK would've been released in 1990 instead of 1989 and avoided all the stiff competition it had to deal with that summer.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    As said, a new actor as Bond is interest all buy itself for this series in the public's eyes. Three years between films should be enough time to find the right actor. It will also help if it's announced during the then-current film that this will be Craig's last.
Sign In or Register to comment.