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
This is brilliant, life-changing stuff. I died when Brosnan started singing and it cut to Moore having a nervous breakdown in the centrifuge trainer. And then Connery's "shut up!"
I do think of myself as a fairly lenient moviegoer, but you know... ignorance is bliss!
hmm. Interesting you say that. I think every Bond film has good elements and as a die hard bond fan I will take even the worst bond film over a regular film. For example, I think skyfall is a terrible bond film, but, had it just been a regular spy movie I feel I would have been much more forgiving and perhaps even enjoyed it. Much the same how I can enjoy BVS but DC fans hate it
The need to find fault with any :-)
It's no secret why I'm hard on some of the Brosnan films and some of Moore, though my respect for the latter has grown in the past simply because, despite their irregular content and lack of Fleming essence, they still have amazing location shooting, effects, artistry and the whole nine that make them feel like real movies with a high quality of execution from a stylistic perspective. The Brosnan films lack that creative luster, and that's partly why those just don't hit me like they do others, despite me being a 90s born kid; so much feels like pastiche, and not good pastiche.
I've always been a vintage man lost in a modern world, so I am drawn to the 60s and the newer Craig films that channel the old school feeling while keeping the Fleming essence I expect. Dalton's films are imperfect, but I still respect the overall approach and like Tim as Bond quite a lot. OHMSS is of course a classic as well, and so it's those main eras, the 60s, the last two 80s films and the Craig era that really receives most of my love and energy, not counting the original books that I adore too. I don't get upset or angry over the Brosnan or Moore films, but you also won't find me watching them half as much as the others simply because they aren't Bond to me and clearly weren't created for the audience or type of fan that I am. I've got a lot to keep me happy when it comes to Bond, however, so can't complain.
Threads here. It can get depressing.
I don't come at it from a standpoint of saying they are exactly the same; I prefer Moore's films every day of the week for the above things I noted: they are more vintage and better made than Brosnan's, so it's not an issue of equal dislike.
But both eras are at the foremost of my mind when it comes to what I see as a lack of nailing that Bond essence that I like to see in the films. After all, they're called Bond films and at the end of the day I'd like to see Bond feeling like Bond, and not a faceless action hero or a distortion of who he should be that reaches unconscious parody. The over the top Bonds have their fans, but I don't count myself as a major advocate of the overall tone or motive of the films from those eras.
In other words, I watched a couple of films and understood I liked Bond. I then watched all the films available to me, and all those films are the films that taught me what a Bond film should be. Everything that comes after is in some ways just me comparing it singly to the unit of those 20 films taken together.
If you became a fan in, say, '68 I can totally understand why going to see MR would've appalled you (and may still).
If that makes sense.
A bridge Brosnan too far for Thundy?
I started with Sean, became bonkers obsessed, and really didn't like Moore's films at all when I first watched them, not only for their change in tone but also because Roger wasn't Sean. As I grew up I realized that the role was owned by more than one man, and though I don't love the Moore films and probably never will, I can respect and appreciate aspects of them as I could nearly all the films, aside from a small group of them.
Over time my expectations and sense of Bond has really been warped by Fleming's own work, and I look to see how his original character is realized on the screen to really find out how much I can enjoy a film. It's no surprise then that the actors I'm drawn to, Sean, Dan and Tim, really latched onto elements of the literary Bond that elevated the material and really shined through. I loved those films already, especially Casino Royale that just ruled my life through a summer of constant rewatches of it on top of all of Sean's movies on repeat, but as I learned more about Fleming, read the books and got a sense of Bond as a character, I found that I was always drawn to the films that best realized the feeling of the books and how Bond was written, in a strange way. Like I already knew who and what Bond was, despite not really at the start beyond his cinematic interpretation.
MASH 45
Melrose Place 25
Batman TAS 25
Answer: It is taken in Norway.
Trustworthy bankers strike again!
I'm in the reverse situation. I already knew that laser mics existed, but I didn't realize that the laser on Bond's gun in the PTS was a laser mic until you mentioned it. I thought it was just a laser sight, but now it makes more sense.
Didn't know about the laser mic nor that Bond's gun in the PTS was a laser mic!
Haha. You nailed it.
Where was he driven to? The moon?!