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

19293959798190

Comments

  • Posts: 4,762
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 135</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Aki and Kissy should have been one and the same character.</b></font>

    I have mixed feeling about this one. I could see myself going either way really. If agreed, it would be because I felt like the character of Kissy was pretty lame and didn't receive enough screen time to be that important. If disagreed, it would be because I always liked the death of Aki, which I thought was well done and one of YOLT's stand-out scenes. I'll probably agree since I never cared for Kissy Suzuki that much.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited July 2012 Posts: 8,266
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 135</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Aki and Kissy should have been one and the same character.</b></font>

    Totally disagree. For one, they look very different and besides, Wakabayashi can't touch Mie Hama in the looks department. Hama was known as the "Brigitte Bardot" of Japan. If ever a perfect woman lived, it is Mie Hama. Two, Kissy was chosen because Aki would have been a stranger on her island and Bond needed that extra special cover. Besides, two girls for Bond are better than one ;)

    you sure you haven't switched the names there? If there's one of the two that ought to be compared to Brigitte Bardot it's Akiko, imo. I never cared for Mie Hama's looks at all. Anyway, the story shows Connery's lack of interest, as Bond just lets her death pass like an intercity train. There she was and oh, now she's gone. next! Even for Bond that's harsh.

  • Well, I guess it's a matter of personal taste then my good Commander. All I know is that in Japan, Mie Hama was a much bigger deal than Wakabayashi, who doesn't even keep a public profile. Hama isn't acting anymore either, but then it was never really her first love. She was hosting a radio show and is active in environmental and agricultural concerns. An translated interview with her can be found here-

    http://www.mania.com/madame-x-mie-hama-bonds-bride-kongs-consort-godzillas-girlontherun_article_26257.html

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Indeed, and it's a good thing, that. Everyone having his personal taste in women. It's bad enough if a couple of guys fight over a girl, even worse if it were the whole world..

    Anyway, that article gives indeed good reason to compare her to Bardot, even if it isn't the looks that justify the comparison. Good read that, thanks!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 24,184
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 136</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Despite its flaws, DAF as is was necessary and saved the franchise.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,355
    The new chosen direction worked and that's that. I do say another Bond film in the vein of On Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been a succees as well though. So the change in tone wasn't "necessary" per say.
  • Posts: 4,813
    THESIS 136

    Disagree- I find the movie to be pretty damn stupid. You could argue that Connery was necessary, but that's about it IMO.
    Even if Lazenby had called it quits, they could have at least had Connery really go for revenge in an OHMSS style sequel.

    I will always consider DAF to be one of the biggest missed opportunities of the whole series
  • Posts: 1,817
    You mean that DAF was not the movie the franchise deserved but the one it needed?
    I don't know believe another film in the trend of OHMSS would've sunk the franchise. I disagree with the thesis.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 4,813
    0013 wrote:
    You mean that DAF was not the movie the franchise deserved but the one it needed?
    lol I read your post in Bale's Bat-voice
  • Posts: 1,817
    And I imagine Connery in '71 saying: "Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!"
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    0013 wrote:
    You mean that DAF was not the movie the franchise deserved but the one it needed?
    lol I read your post in Bale's Bat-voice
    I hear Hans Zimmer in the back, yeah. ;-)

    I partially agree with the thesis. I think DAF, as well as follow-up film LALD, were well received by audiences and thus helped the franchise to enter the 70s. That said, I'm not sure that any other style of Bond films wouldn't have done the job equally well or even better. How about an OHMSS 2, starring Connery? Was is the film that people responded less enthusiastically to, or the Bond?

  • edited July 2012 Posts: 4,813
    0013 wrote:
    And I imagine Connery in '71 saying: "Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!"
    '....and they'll chase him. Because he can take it.'

    Ok I'm done, lol :-t
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    I don't think DAF saved the franchise, I think it took it in a direction it shouldn't really have gone. They panicked and hired Sean again, where they could have gone for Roger Moore already. They also could have skipped it completely and done LALD immediately. That would have saved the series as well.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Agree with the thesis, even though OHMSS is my favorite Bond film and DAF among my least.

    The evidence that Eon had in 1970 was that GF and TB worked but that YOLT and OHMSS were box office disappointments. This is likely why they were talking about bringing Gert Frobe back as GF's brother in DAF.

    The film industry was in a crisis in 1970; indie films like Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider were all the rage while studio films were in decline.

    But Connery was still a huge draw in 1971 and his swan song, combined with the novelty of Moore in 1973, kept the series afloat, at least until Jaws in 1975 and Star Wars in 1977 ushered in the blockbuster era, which again allowed Bond to thrive.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    MAJOR DISAGREEMENT. DAF ruined not only the arc from OHMSS, but was an abortive film in general all on its own.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 136</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Despite its flaws, DAF as is was necessary and saved the franchise.</b></font>

    I would agree only as far as getting Connery back in the role to save the franchise both popularly and financially, it definitely was public opinion as well as that of UA. It would have been a mistake to go with another new Bond at that point and credit to UA for recognizing that.

    As far as most everything else, the movie seems to have few fans. I enjoy it because it's Connery, it's an official film, and I can have fun with it because it's obvious Sean is mailing it in and having fun and that's the spirit of it. If I look it at a sequel to OHMSS, which it's painfully obvious that they were trying to stay far away from, in comparison to what QOS was for CR, it fails miserably in comparison and it's also very understandable why DAF is in the bottom five or not much higher for most people.


  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited July 2012 Posts: 8,217
    I'm sure it re-energised the franchise financially, but as far as the quality of the film goes, it's easily a bottom three Bond entry. It was total rubbish and ruined a potentially great story that followed from OHMSS.

    So depending on what the context of the thesis is, I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. I'll say disagree though, because its one of my least favourite Bond films.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Lazenby did OK for me in '69, and as we couldn't get him back, I wouldn't go as far to say that Diamonds and Connery saved the series, probably got the interest back and put butts on seats but he made a bit of an embarrassment of himself that year, Bond Icon or not, he was badly out of sorts by 1971. Should of had George back going after Blofeld to honor Tracy, not some dumb ass idea about making a laser satelite weapon out of Diamonds. I'm going to disagree with thesis all said
  • Posts: 4,762
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 136</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Despite its flaws, DAF as is was necessary and saved the franchise.</b></font>

    YES! Lazenby would have brought Bond down to its knees if he attempted another go-around as 007, seeing as how unsuccessful OHMSS was back around its time of release. It was completely necessary because it brought the fans back around to where they wanted to go, at least for one more time, Connery in a larger-than-life mission with a diabolical scheme to unwrap. It might get corny and cheesy at times, but I think I'd take it over OHMSS which was a complete flop for Bond.
  • Posts: 5,634
    I know it's maybe you're most disliked Bond release, but in fairness Lazenby wasn't too bad a Bond for his one and only appearance. I think in retrospect, I know who I would of rather had as 007 for Diamonds. George would of been about 31 by that time, and at least a more plausible Bond than an ageing Connery who was only along for a big fat pay check and didn't look the least bit convincing as 007 that year. I'm sorry, but that's merely how I see it
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I would
    00Beast wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 136</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Despite its flaws, DAF as is was necessary and saved the franchise.</b></font>

    YES! Lazenby would have brought Bond down to its knees if he attempted another go-around as 007, seeing as how unsuccessful OHMSS was back around its time of release. It was completely necessary because it brought the fans back around to where they wanted to go, at least for one more time, Connery in a larger-than-life mission with a diabolical scheme to unwrap. It might get corny and cheesy at times, but I think I'd take it over OHMSS which was a complete flop for Bond.

    I would disagree with your entire statement as -
    a) Cubby and Harry begged George to stay right up until the last possible minute and I think they know a bit more about filmaking than you.
    b) OHMSS was not unsuccessful it was merely less successful. According to IMDB it made $87m on a $7m investment. Those are figures most films can only dream of. YOLT made $111m back on a $9.5 budget and DAF $116m back on a $7m so yes they were more successful but considering $1m of the DAF budget was just for Seans fee it really didnt make sense to keep trying to lure him back. If OHMSS had truly flopped then they wouldnt have been so keen to keep George on.

    In terms of the thesis I disagree. Firstly on the basis that DAF itself didnt 'save' the series, it was Seans return. DAF succeeded solely because of Sean. With him its a mess but without him its a real dog of a script (Mankiewiczs one liners apart) and had John Gavin starred the series would truly have ended.

    Secondly - did the series need saving? OHMSS made a healthy return, OK less than the usual massive figures but still enough to warrant continuing the series, and we will never be able to say for whether George would have grown into the part and been accepted by the public or rejected and needed Rog to save it. I would argue that Rog saved the series more as after the turbulence of the Sean/George/Sean flip flop and the shambles of a film that was DAF he got things back on an even keel.
  • edited July 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Hmmm, disagree. From what I've read, the series wasn't really in much danger after OHMSS, I think they just panicked after Lazenby left and begged Connery to come back. Wizard is right, if anything, Moore saved the series.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    MAJOR DISAGREEMENT. DAF ruined not only the arc from OHMSS, but was an abortive film in general all on its own.

    That's not the point of the thesis. The question asked is whether or not DAF saved the franchise financially... in other words, would a 2nd Lazenby film, or a 2nd film in OHMSS vein be successful or not .

  • edited July 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Hmmm, disagree. From what I've read, the series wasn't really in much danger after OHMSS, I think they just panicked after Lazenby left and begged Connery to come back. Wizard is right, if anything, Moore saved the series.

    I think it would be foolish to say Sir Roger didn't create a new renaissance of interest in Bond films. He was a known and well liked commodity unlike Lazenby and that didn't hurt. But he also had the benefit of a perfectly timed film plot that capitalized on "Blaxploitation" and a runaway hit classic title song, both of which also generated a lot of interest in the film. I was plenty old enough at 11 years old to remember all of it.

    Speaking of remembering, what you wrote about the period between OHMSS and DAF is not exactly what happened. United Artists panicked much more than Cubby and Harry over the critical and box office reception, Bond was their #1 meal ticket so to speak and they decided to make Sean an "offer he couldn't refuse". Cubby and Harry were happy to find another Bond not named Sean, what they didn't want was an American actor which is what UA did want. Believe me, at least from what I heard and again can truly remember first hand, many people absolutely hated George as the new Bond and said they wouldn't watch any new movies unless Sean was in them. The fact that Sean was fat, balding, and on obvious autopilot did finally make people realize that his glory days in the role were long gone and that change was inevitable.





  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 137</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Valentin Zukovsky worked better in the GE script than he did in the TWINE script.</b></font>
  • Posts: 12,837
    Disagree. I'd say he worked equally well in both.
  • Disagree. I'd say he worked equally well in both.

    I agree with this and disagree with the thesis. He had a better relationship with Bond in TWINE based on working together in GE, but Zukovsky was still a bit of a crook and Bond still didn't trust him.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Disagree, he worked fine in both movies.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    SaintMark wrote:
    Disagree, he worked fine in both movies.

    Ditto.

  • Posts: 5,634
    I was leaning more towards The World Is Not Enough from all that I can remember, and not just because it's my more favorite of the two Brosnan releases

    Therefore, going to disagree with thesis
Sign In or Register to comment.