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
Agree. At the time i am guessing it was a case of he is not Connery! Which to be fair? Is understandable. I would imagine that there may well have been some anti-Lazenby stuff going on too?
But without doubt alot more people nowadays have realised just how good a movie OHMSS really was.
I agree although it actually had stronger box office results and got better reviews on its initial release that many believe as this link illustrates-
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/history_press_ohmss_critics.php3?t=mi6&s=ohmss
I agree with this thesis.
I disagree with CR being a contender. The negativity on DC was before the release of the movie. When it was released there was an immidiate sigh of relief and positivity about CR & DC.
OHMSS suffered also because of the new Bond, read NOT- Connery. It did kinda okay at the BO but suffered a lot of critism. With the VHS and dvd the movie got re-evaluated because now it was easier obtainable. Since then people started noticing how strong this first and only movie from George Lazenby actually was and how powerfull the drama was. OHMSS has gained a lot of friends years after its release.
My own experience with the first view of OHMSS (VHS) whasn't positieve too, like FRWL Octopussy TMND or Twine for example the movie must grow on me.
With CR fans and media be to positivity, in specialy because of all the previous hate of Brosnan and the problems people don't like to have with the 24 subject of the movie.
<font color=blue size=7><b>The first few Bond films were trend setters; the most recent Bond films mostly followed trends.</b></font>
BUT I wouldn't say it's just the most recent films, Bond has been following trends since the 70s. It hurts the films when it's really obvious they're following trends (space in MR, Bourne style editing/cam in QOS).
but you could argue that the early Bond films were following the Hitchcock style, like 'North By Northwest'.
The helicopter scene was an hommage to NBNw, the rest of the movie was fairly faithfull to the Fleming novel. So it went their own way not following anything from sanother movie. With GF, TB, YOLT even OHMSS they did set the trend.
Then again with TSWLM & MR they also set the trend in actionmovies as going where no actioner had gone before. (The popularity of SW did make it economical feasible to be a little more SciFi).
So agreed.
Thesis 117- Agreed, but as stated, you could trace trend copying long before the Craig era. I'd trace it back to 1973 when LALD conveniently turned up smack in the middle of the "Blaxploitation era". TSWLM was a rehash of YOLT and was looking to capitalize on "Jaws", MR was a cash in on "Star Wars" and even worse, spoofs of Bond made outside of the series, etc, etc. It's like I've said, after 50 years it's got to be difficult not to go somewhere when someone doesn't think they've copied someone else.
I disagree that LTK was setting any trends, it was following in them. It co-opted the gritty action of Miami Vice and Die-Hard that were already established.
Ah, but LTK did set a trend as far as Bond movies go, hence why so many hardcores have definitely noticed a similarity as to how Craig portrayed the character for sure in QOS. That part of the Bond personality has only been touched on before Dalton let it out full blast.
I never found Miami Vice to be gritty in the sense of Die Hard, the only thing LTK has in common with Vice is the locales, which are easily trumped by the amazing scenery filmed in Mexico and the Bahamas.
So, I agree with the thesis, but with one annotation: Bond films have been reinventing themselves, even though there is a set of givens that you can't ignore. I think therein lies the strength of th Bondfilms.
I bought the series Miami Vice on dvd recently, my memories are wrong. It looks all very colourfull but that show is very gritty and dark.
And shows amazing scenery filmed in 5 seasons.
I fear that visualy LTK is a poor mans Miami Vice.
I think it's hard to deny though that QOS clearly followed a certain style of cinematography that is currently very much in vogue and that was famously used (but not introduced) by Greengrass in the Bourne films. 'Ripping off' is different thing. I'm with you there. Applying the same aesthetics, on the other hand, is an objectively observable fact.
I think the action in QOS (or at least the way it was shot/edited), was Bourne inspired. Other than that, no way.
I do think they took the series in a more realistic direction BECAUSE of Bourne (in that the films inspired them to go back to basics), but didn't copy it, when they actually made the films they made them different (apart from the QOS action scenes). I think without Bourne we would've got a more down to earth, FYEO style 5th Brosnan film.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Imperfect moments, technical or otherwise, from past Bond films should never be "fixed" for a future DVD/BR release.</b></font>
Depends on what it is. Fixing colouring or whatever in an attempt to improve the quality of the picture, yes. Re-editing, no (except for QOS, which needs re-editing badly). With George Lucas' 'fixing' of the Star Wars films, he did make some small improvements on tiny things, but some big mistakes on others. Would hate to see that happen to Bond.