›

"Dont blow it all at once ": Die Another Day Appreciation Thread

1…3536384041…70

Comments

  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Ehhh, I dunno. CR and OHMSS are two of the more grounded story lines, and the craig Bonds thrive on their grittiness.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I agree with the fact that Bond is not realism. A man like Bond can't exist in the real world so it cannot actually be realistic if you really think about it.

    However it should be grounded in some reality that is plausible.

    A deft touch is required to make it believable and still escapist without crossing the line, and the level of escapism that can be tolerated changes with the times. I contend that they could get away with more escapism in the 60's than they could now. The market is just different in a post-911 world.

    What really suprises me is how much escapism they injected during Moore's run in the 70's. The 70's generally were a very realistic, gritty, dark time for espionage driven thrillers, so I think a realistic, dark Bond could have done very well then. However, with Moore's TSWLM & especially MR, they chased the really escapist Star Wars angle, and ended up doing very well at the box office. I really enjoyed both films (yes, I admit I love MR) but it would have been interesting to see how a dark, stripped down Bond would have done in the 'post-Nixon can't trust anyone' real 70's movie market.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    I just came off a holiday Moore marathon, then watched DAD.... all I have to say is that DAD was pretty enjoyable. A large dose of Moore makes DAD seem much better than it is IMHO. :D
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I just came off a holiday Moore marathon, then watched DAD.... all I have to say is that DAD was pretty enjoyable. A large dose of Moore makes DAD seem much better than it is IMHO. :D

    DAD is the lost Moore film, hence my avatar. One day I'll get around to writing the synopsis, with the Koreans replaced by the Khymer Rouge.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes, I agree with the fact that Bond is not realism. A man like Bond can't exist in the real world so it cannot actually be realistic if you really think about it.

    However it should be grounded in some reality that is plausible.

    A deft touch is required to make it believable and still escapist without crossing the line, and the level of escapism that can be tolerated changes with the times. I contend that they could get away with more escapism in the 60's than they could now. The market is just different in a post-911 world.

    What really suprises me is how much escapism they injected during Moore's run in the 70's. The 70's generally were a very realistic, gritty, dark time for espionage driven thrillers, so I think a realistic, dark Bond could have done very well then. However, with Moore's TSWLM & especially MR, they chased the really escapist Star Wars angle, and ended up doing very well at the box office. I really enjoyed both films (yes, I admit I love MR) but it would have been interesting to see how a dark, stripped down Bond would have done in the 'post-Nixon can't trust anyone' real 70's movie market.

    Yes it is a fine line. The best films get that balance between the realisism and the fantasy right. Some go too far in each direction - usually too much implausible fantasy nonsense.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    A big thing I didn't like this time around with Moore was the 'winky' factor. For all its faults, DAD gave us a basically wink-less Bond. Brosnan gave his all, and for ME, that's enough to pull me through it. But then, like @Murdock, I'm a gigantic Brozzfan.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    I think the difference between Connery and Moore is now the debate between Craig and Broz, though again I really like GE, but the other films after that….man he gets kinda soft, whereas Craig is just a tough, brutal Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    A big thing I didn't like this time around with Moore was the 'winky' factor. For all its faults, DAD gave us a basically wink-less Bond. Brosnan gave his all, and for ME, that's enough to pull me through it. But then, like @Murdock, I'm a gigantic Brozzfan.

    That's a good point that I never though about before. I think I've always liked the 'wink' factor with Moore though, almost like he knew it was over the top camp and he was playing it for all it was worth and having fun with us in the audience too.

    I still think TSWLM was just the right mix of OTT, wink at the audience and pure spy espionage. I absolutely love that film. Timeless, IMO.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2014 Posts: 11,189
    I think Moore could overdo things at times though.

    I don't find him very convincing as Bond in most of MR for instance. That bloody smirk annyoys me...and how many times during his run did he do the same shtick of winking at the bad guys in the car next to him?

    Yes Rog we get it!! It's all a joke. Well its not that funny.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think Moore could overdo things at times though.

    I don't find him very convincing as Bond in most of MR for instance. That bloody smirk annyoys me.

    Yes Rog we get it!! It's all a joke. Well its not that funny.

    You're correct. I think he hit the balance right in TSWLM, which was very OTT but still appeared somewhat grounded. MR. OP & AVTAK had perhaps a little too many 'wink' moments but I liked them too.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Agreed about TSWLM. He actually behaves more like a spy. In MR especially I think he just plays himself. Other than a few scenes I just didn't think he felt like Bond in that film (especially given some of the daft outfits he wears).
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    The man couldn't fight. He sure as hell couldn't run. Connery had pussy galore. Moore was just a pussycat
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The man couldn't fight. He sure as hell couldn't run. Connery had pussy galore. Moore was just a pussycat

    He was definitely a lover, not a fighter.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The man couldn't fight. He sure as hell couldn't run. Connery had pussy galore. Moore was just a pussycat

    Moore reminds me of the fighting fish analogy from FRWL. He'd watch his opponents slog it out in a display of alpha male superiority, and when they're both too exhausted to fight, he'd strike, with elegance, wit and a cool nonchalance. That's what I like about his Bond. Realistic? Not really. But fantastically beautiful.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The man couldn't fight. He sure as hell couldn't run. Connery had pussy galore. Moore was just a pussycat

    Moore reminds me of the fighting fish analogy from FRWL. He'd watch his opponents slog it out in a display of alpha male superiority, and when they're both too exhausted to fight, he'd strike, with elegance, wit and a cool nonchalance. That's what I like about his Bond. Realistic? Not really. But fantastically beautiful.

    Here here!
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Lol, to each their own. When dalton finally showed up in 87, it was a relief!
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The man couldn't fight. He sure as hell couldn't run. Connery had pussy galore. Moore was just a pussycat

    Dude! You're cracking me up! Agree with you totally.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    RC7 wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The man couldn't fight. He sure as hell couldn't run. Connery had pussy galore. Moore was just a pussycat

    Moore reminds me of the fighting fish analogy from FRWL. He'd watch his opponents slog it out in a display of alpha male superiority, and when they're both too exhausted to fight, he'd strike, with elegance, wit and a cool nonchalance. That's what I like about his Bond. Realistic? Not really. But fantastically beautiful.

    …and that's the stuff that people grew tired of seeing him do. Not a hair or ruffle out of place…and clearly can't fight worth a lick.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2014 Posts: 11,189
    If there is a problem with Moore it's that he's too smooth. Always has a smart-arse remark up his sleeve. Rarely seems particularly fazed by danger.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    If there is a problem with Moore it's that he's too smooth. Always has a smart-arse remark up his sleeve. Rarely seems particularly fazed by danger.

    True. He played Bond as Superman no doubt.

    Which is why, in those few scenes when he does appear ruffled, I found it quite effective. In particular the MR centrifuge scene. Not a word, but it conveyed a lot. He should have done more of that IMO.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Agreed, in the next scene though he turns on the charm to Corine.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    The most atrocious seduction dialogue ever
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    She does fall for him WAAYYY too easily.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The most atrocious seduction dialogue ever

    Amen.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    The most atrocious seduction dialogue ever

    Amen.

    The worst dialogue from the Moore era is at the end of AVTAK hands down when he and Stacey are in the shower:

    "Stacey, I'll give you a little soap here and a little soap there. Drat! I dropped the soap"
    "I'll get it" (giggles)
    "THAT is not the soap"
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Here's something that'll shock some people. I like James Bond, but there's a lot of the movies that are just awful
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Here's something that'll shock some people. I like James Bond, but there's a lot of the movies that are just awful

    That's not shocking.

  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Good, I was worried;) I'm trying to behave, I got a lifetime ban from another site because I got too mouthy and opinionated ;)
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Not shocking at all. I feel that way.

    Here's the films I like a lot:

    Dr No
    From Russia WIth Love
    Goldfinger
    Thunderball
    You Only Live twice
    On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Casino Royale
    Skyfall


    Like these films to varying degrees:

    Goldeneye
    Quantum of Solace
    Diamonds are Forever
    Living Daylights

    Keep the rest. Honestly.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    You guys are all great to talk bond with on this site
Sign In or Register to comment.