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

19394969899190

Comments

  • Posts: 1,856
    Disagree brilliant in both, if any thing better in TWINE
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    If you can provide a link to the scripts prehaps we can talk but for now this is more or less personal opinion on multiple writers. seven? and two directors, two different crews. two different locations and two different films and lets not forget two different editors so i could not tell you how he is in both scripts when filtered through these things.
    He is merely a throw away character who gets bond from point a to point b in both films. Bruce Feinstein's kerim bey, a native Felix. one who could perhaps die in the interest of preserving Mathis and Felix for further adventures.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    I slightly prefer him in TWINE, but like him in both. (How could you not?)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Utilised very well in both, but in my opinion he was much more memorable in GoldenEye and as such, I agree with the thesis.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    I think they made mistakes with the character in TWINE. Sure, his death was sad and he had a few good lines, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's forced coincidence. We need a submarine captain, so we give Zukowski a nephew who just happens to be exactly that. Of course, why not. Lazy screenwriting!

    And how about Zukowski's so-called drowning in caviare? An embarrassing scene.

    Going back even further, that card game Elektra plays to pay off Zukowski in the casino... terrible. It's neither fascinating, exciting, cool, smart or anything else. It's far-fetched. Again: coincidence. Right at the moment when Bond visits Zukowski, Elektra drops by. P&W had no idea where to take this script, did they?

    In GE, I could buy him as a mobster. In TWINE, he was P&W's backup plan for when they were struggling with their messy screenplay again.
  • Posts: 7,653
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I think they made mistakes with the character in TWINE. Sure, his death was sad and he had a few good lines, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's forced coincidence. We need a submarine captain, so we give Zukowski a nephew who just happens to be exactly that. Of course, why not. Lazy screenwriting!

    And how about Zukowski's so-called drowning in caviare? An embarrassing scene.

    Going back even further, that card game Elektra plays to pay off Zukowski in the casino... terrible. It's neither fascinating, exciting, cool, smart or anything else. It's far-fetched. Again: coincidence. Right at the moment when Bond visits Zukowski, Elektra drops by. P&W had no idea where to take this script, did they?

    In GE, I could buy him as a mobster. In TWINE, he was P&W's backup plan for when they were struggling with their messy screenplay again.

    While I disagree with your observations, I take it this thesis comes forth from your personal dislike me thinks?

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    Well, to be honest, in thinking up these theses, I don't really care so much about how personal or impersonal they may end up upon further contemplating. ;-) Also, some of these aren't mine to begin with. :-) And even if there's a personal like or dislike behind it, I'm always interested in reading other people's thoughts.
  • Posts: 7,653
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Well, to be honest, in thinking up these theses, I don't really care so much about how personal or impersonal they may end up upon further contemplating. ;-) Also, some of these aren't mine to begin with. :-) And even if there's a personal like or dislike behind it, I'm always interested in reading other people's thoughts.

    Don't take me wrong I find this a brilliant thread, it is only rarely you come out n this thread and really say what you think no bars hold.

    I still think that Ronin could have been the most brilliant 007 movie ever, so what do I know.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    SaintMark wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Well, to be honest, in thinking up these theses, I don't really care so much about how personal or impersonal they may end up upon further contemplating. ;-) Also, some of these aren't mine to begin with. :-) And even if there's a personal like or dislike behind it, I'm always interested in reading other people's thoughts.

    Don't take me wrong I find this a brilliant thread, it is only rarely you come out n this thread and really say what you think no bars hold.

    I still think that Ronin could have been the most brilliant 007 movie ever, so what do I know.

    And I'm not even disagreeing with that. ;-)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,715
    Disagree - Coltrane was awesome in both GE and TWINE :)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,355
    I would give the edge to him working better in GoldenEye, yes. He helped out both films but the GoldenEye story benefits the most from his character, in my opinion.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    I love the circularity of Zukovsky shooting Bond in the leg...but to save him.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,249
    I was just happy they brought him back, and found it sad they killed him off. So, disagree. For as much TWINE's worth, Zukowski is a highlight.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,287
    I was just happy they brought him back, and found it sad they killed him off. So, disagree. For as much TWINE's worth, Zukowski is a highlight.

    That seems to be the way with many Bond allies. If you get brought back in a mission (Zukovsky, Mathis), you get killed off in the second film.

    Of course, the exception is Leiter (and Wade, who is basically Leiter-lite).

  • Posts: 12,526
    Thesis 136: Disagree. My reason is that they should have stuck with Lazenby! OHMSS made a profit regardless of the fact a smaller one than what they were use too. They should have persevered with GL.

    Thesis 137: Disagree also as i thought VZ was great in both movies.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 138</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Guy Hamilton never took the Bonds seriously.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    His "we're all going to go along and have a bit of fun" statements, never helped much and didn't allow him to argue that he saw Bond any other way. For the most part, I agree, Hamilton did not take the Bonds seriously but that's not to say he never did.
  • Posts: 4,762
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 138</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Guy Hamilton never took the Bonds seriously.</b></font>

    There is some truth in this statement in that he certainly provided us with lighter, more fun-filled , campy Bond adventures. However, he wasn't afraid to go down the dark alley with his movies. Whether it is Jill Masterson covered in gold paint, Tilly getting her neck sliced, Mrs. Whistler getting drowned, the voodoo acts of San Monique, Andrea Anders bullet to the chest, or Bond threatening to kill Scaramanga, he could be very serious when he wanted to be.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 138</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Guy Hamilton never took the Bonds seriously.</b></font>

    With the exception of DAF, I disagree.
    GF, LALD and TMWTGG were fairly serious Bond films, sure they had there share of silly moments, but there were still serious.
  • @00Beast hit the nail on the head really.
  • Posts: 4,762
    @00Beast hit the nail on the head really.

    Why thank you, my good man!
    Murdock wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 138</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Guy Hamilton never took the Bonds seriously.</b></font>

    With the exception of DAF, I disagree.
    GF, LALD and TMWTGG were fairly serious Bond films, sure they had there share of silly moments, but there were still serious.

    I understand where you are coming from on that, but I for one think that DAF had just as many silly moments and serious moments in balance as did TMWTGG. Such scenes like the killings of Mrs. Whistler and Shady Tree, the fight with Peter Franks, and the discovery of Plenty's dead body in the pool are enough to include it in the list. TMWTGG didn't feature more than DAF did on that note, really only Bond's interrogations of Andrea and Lazar, Scaramanga killing Hai Fat, the death of Andrea and the dinner table scene.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited August 2012 Posts: 8,216
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 138</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Guy Hamilton never took the Bonds seriously.</b></font>

    To an extent I sort-of agree. There are the definite lighter elements in the stories to his films, and that is what makes them memorable in a lot of ways. Everyone knows that Goldfinger was the film that started the big, extravagant Bond plots, and DAF is just full of camp. I do think that with the exception of DAF, his films embraced the larger side of Bond in terms of tone, but they never forgot what they were, and there was always a few scenes in there to bring them back down to where a lot of people might feel they should be.

  • Posts: 5,634
    Let's review Hamilton's work

    Goldfinger 1964 - Dull, Boring and Lifeless, serious Bond for the most part, not an over emphasis on humor

    Diamonds are Forever 1971 - Uneventful, inappropriate Bond, hardly serious, a lot of nonsense going on, more comedy than straight faced

    Live and Let Die 1973 - Great film, Good Bond, serious for the most part, different, humor not as widespread as some of the same releases in it's vicinity

    The Man With The Golden Gun 1974 - still serious Bond for the most part, classic lines, great villain, some absurd and ill advised moments, good watch overall

    All said, it appears Hamilton went about his directorial duties with a straight face, not so much emphasis on humor as later names such as Glen or even Gilbert. Only Diamonds are Forever truly stands out as a nonsense entry. Thesis is incorrect
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited August 2012 Posts: 4,514
    Live and Let Die.

    The Man With The Golden Gun. Roger Yolt, but i prefer above Yolt. This is in specialy because of the end, the story and the villan.

    Diamonds are Forever. After FRWL & Yolt Sean Connery his best performing as Bond. With FRWL Sean Connery performe very good because of other people be good too, with Yolt his part is good because of good spying and some humor of Connery. With DAF he saved the movie for a big part. Finaly more then in Yolt standalone Connery humor.

    Goldfinger. This is a Bond eat out of his nose movie. Bond looked bored and me as audince get bored too after a whyle. There are a couple of good scene's but after the humor of FRWL. Also Dr No is more entertainment then this one. I prefer A View To A Kill where Roger Moore Bond do more with his time, better villian, better allly. Felix actor is to old in Goldfinger that i don't see him as Felix.


    I disagree, the producers have a big say in what there whant.
  • Posts: 1,817
    I remember an interview of Hamilton himself saying that nobody should take Bond films seriously. So despite the various interpretations one can make from the films, I agree with the thesis.
  • Posts: 4,762
    0013 wrote:
    I remember an interview of Hamilton himself saying that nobody should take Bond films seriously. So despite the various interpretations one can make from the films, I agree with the thesis.

    Perhaps he is a bit fickle, because even though he did provide us with the lighter-hearted, fun-for-the-family Bond movies, he wasn't afraid to unleash the serious side of 007, especially in LALD and TMWTGG.
  • Posts: 1,817
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,169
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 139</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>QoS' scepticism towards British politicians doesn't fit Fleming's legacy.</b></font>
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 139</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>QoS' scepticism towards British politicians doesn't fit Fleming's legacy.</b></font>

    Fleming never majorly touched on corruption within British establishment as his books were of a particular mindset. After the war, focus was on the enemy abroad, not the enemy at home. Naturally enough, as times change, so do your enemies (thinking of GE tagline) so while I agree that it didn't fit with Fleming, it works for Bond now.

    Agree.

  • From the Fleming books I've read, it seems to be "Britain, f*ck yeah!!!", with the bad guys being the russians or SPECTRE, and he never really mentions corruption or anything on the UK side of things, so I'll agree.
Sign In or Register to comment.