Controversial opinions about Bond films

1435436438440441707

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Only LTK is in my top 10. It has enjoyed quite a resurgence. For many years I actually couldn't stand it. What brought on the reassessment?

    Not the Craig era, as some have speculated. Rather, I think it's P&W's dramatic leanings, more than anything else, that have made me look at LTK in a new light. Perhaps I think that the EON writers handled the emotional quotient better in the 1989 film than in the more recent P&W penned entries.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Would've loved to have seen LTK in theaters.
  • Posts: 15,115
    Sean Connery in DAF plays two completely different James Bond: one for the PTS and one for the rest of the movie.
  • Posts: 7,417
    I distinctly remember seeing it as June 1989 was a very hot Summer! It was a Sunday afternoon, Savoy cinema. In those days (ha!) The Savoy put a Q sign outside for screen 1 (their biggest screen!) and the queue stretched down the street!
    After being hugely impressed by TLD and Dalton becoming my favourite Bond, I thought LTK was brilliant, different to his debut, but still tremendous. I too found the score wanting and remember being disappointed that Barry wasn't available (if I recall he was going through a bad illness). I saw it 5 times in cinema and it hasn't lost any of its impact for me!
  • TLD at the cinema is one of my earliest childhood memories but I was too young to go and see LTK. Still remember how ecstatic I was when I got the video for Christmas a couple of years later.

    One of my biggest regrets is missing the chance again to see it at the cinema when Vue were running the Bond double bills in the run up to Spectre. I saw the Connery one but not Dalton, because I was away that weekend so couldn't go. Gutting. I can't remember why I missed the Moore one but at least the Odeon memorial double bill gave me another chance. The Brosnan and Craig ones I didn't bother with because I saw all those at the cinema on release.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Sean Connery in DAF plays two completely different James Bond: one for the PTS and one for the rest of the movie.

    Yes! I would have liked to have seen more of PTS Bond as a follow up to OHMSS. It's the one and only time that I'd actually ask for more of a personal angle. And the film should have ended with a satisfying death for Blofeld.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,290
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    LTK second half dull? It has the most exciting finish since OHMSS and Glen builds that brilliantly from when Bond puts his plan into place when he plants Sanchez money on Krests boat!

    I'm with you. LTK has one of the best second halves of any Bond film (most usually have stronger first halves it seems like). As a whole, it's one of the most underrated and exciting Bond films.

    Agree entirely. LTK is one of the few Bond films where the climax is also the high point of the film.

    bondjames wrote: »
    My only point is that San Francisco is a wonderfully scenic city and I feel that so much more could and should have been done with that location in the film. Films like Vertigo, Jade, The Rock, Basic Instinct, Bullitt etc. really do a better job of it, and that's just to name a few.

    I think this reasonably fair. We get a quick shot of Fishermans Wharf and a fine climax on the Golden Gate Bridge but City hall could just be any office block and the fire truck chase could take place in any city and doesn't make the most of the location like the chases in Bullit and The Rock.

    My own personal (not sure if it's controversial) opinion is that Bond never really works in America for some reason.

    GF - The film grinds to a halt once we arrive in Kentucky and even though picks up at the end that is a Ken Adam 'set' piece (see what I did there?). Although seeing a glimpse of kitsch 60s Americana is fun a character in a Bond film should never end up at KFC.

    DAF - Again starts off reasonably then gets worse as it moves to America and is one of the dullest films both visually and narratively. And Circus Circus is spectacularly naff.

    LALD - Probably pulls it off the best as it goes off the beaten track slightly with Harlem and the Bayou but another far from stellar film.

    MR - I'm barely counting this as an establishing shot of LAX hardly gives us the feeling we are in California.

    AVTAK - As already mentioned, ok but far from great.

    LTK - A very TV movie feel in the early scenes particularly. Not sure if that's down to the lacklustre photography or the location but still underwhelms when set against the fabulous cold war feel of the first half of TLD.

    Overall when you look at the films that have been stateside it's hardly a spectacular CV with only GF being what could potentially be classed as top tier (and even with that the weakest part is set in America). Is it just a coincidence? I don't really know the answer, and this isn't meant to be a slagging off of the USA (we have other threads for that), but it just seems to me that when Bond crosses the pond the results are largely 'meh'.

    I don't think it's necessarily the locations as NBNW nails it in spades and also makes excellent use of its locations (the UN building, the crop dusting sequence, Mt Rushmore) but personally my own preference for a Bond film is it shmostly Europe with a sojourn to somewhere a bit exotic if you must.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    New controversial opinion: whatever it's hypothetical quality, a third Dalton movie would have exasperated the audiences at the time.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm inclined to agree. Much as I like LTK, my understanding is Dalton and the film didn't catch fire and he was always living in Brosnan's shadow.

    I think I'd agree with you both there. I have serious misgivings over what sort of box office a third Dalton film would have done stateside either in 91 or 95. Wouldn't have sunk the series as they could've still reset with Brosnan in 93 or 97 but even without the delay I can't envisage Dalton having the popularity to do 6 or 7 films.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Controversial opinion from me: we are at a similar turning point now.

    Sad to say I agree here too. It just seems like since the spectacular adrenaline shot of CR ever since has been a slow decline and the Mendes era (despite the fact I don't despise either of them like some) has just descended into fan fiction to the point where we are now Ina narrative cul de sac that can surely only be best resolved with starting afresh?

    Despite him being excellent in the role (not so much as exec producer - but that's a different debate) I'm just not feeling a lot of enthusiasm for another Craig Bond film from either the public, people her or, indeed, myself.

    Bond belongs in Europe, with the occasional side trip to the Caribbean. The US, Asia, Africa all feel a bit off to me...

    I'm one of those that desperately wants another Craig film, and for him to knock it out of the park.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 11,189
    LTK’s reassessment came a few years ago for me after watching it as part of a double bill with OHMSS.

    Prior to then it was a top 5.

    Afterwards it just seemed quite tatty and bland. The comments about the opening having a tv feel are bang on.

    BUT I do agree that the tanker climax still holds up pretty well.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.
  • Posts: 15,115
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    LTK’s reassessment came a few years ago for me after watching it as part of a double bill with OHMSS.

    Prior to then it was a top 5.

    Afterwards it just seemed quite tatty and bland. The comments about the opening having a tv feel are bang on.

    BUT I do agree that the tanker climax still holds up pretty well.

    That's unusual: most of the time it's the other way around with LTK.

    More about America and Bond: I don't think American audiences would be that excited about an American setting. As for me, I'll repeat what I said: why bother.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.
    Excellent post. Fully agreed.
  • edited February 2018 Posts: 11,189
    Ludovico wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    LTK’s reassessment came a few years ago for me after watching it as part of a double bill with OHMSS.

    Prior to then it was a top 5.

    Afterwards it just seemed quite tatty and bland. The comments about the opening having a tv feel are bang on.

    BUT I do agree that the tanker climax still holds up pretty well.

    That's unusual: most of the time it's the other way around with LTK.

    More about America and Bond: I don't think American audiences would be that excited about an American setting. As for me, I'll repeat what I said: why bother.

    I still think it’s a good movie but it definitely lacks a certain “class” maybe. That becomes all the more noticeable when putting it against the 60s films which were made 20-30 years earlier.
  • Posts: 727
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.
  • Posts: 12,466
    My favorite Bond cinematography includes TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM, MR, CR, and SF.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.

    It's not about exposure, but how you photograph it. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.

    It's not about exposure, but how you photograph it. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.
    I quite agree. I viewed Collateral on the weekend (a film which no doubt visually inspired SF). L.A. looks surreal and stunning. Michael Mann is a master at this and did the same with Miami Vice and Manhunter. David Fincher is another one.
  • Posts: 727
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    Eh? Even the less ploddingly overexposed parts of America are unsuitable for Bond. Can you imagine him scuttling about in a reservation? Or talking a jolly old walk on a national park. Just screams anti-Bond.

    It's not about exposure, but how you photograph it. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as the saying goes.

    By the glory of Bast, I wasn't referring to cinematography.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Responding to opinions from the last few pages:

    America is not right for Bond.

    Actually America is the perfect location for a Bond film, it's just never been done right before, even in GF. I think this is because when they go on location they usually try and capture the culture in a snapshot. I don't that's how it should be done in the US, since we see American culture in almost every action movie. What they should do instead is focus the natural aesthetic charms of the locations, the vistas and ambience rather than have Bond running around Disney land like BHC3.

    'Perfect location'?

    Can't say I'm having that. East Berlin, Istanbul, Jamaica, Deauville and the Alps are perfect Bond locations.

    I guess if you must send Bond stateside then try and go off the beaten track and dont just give us the things we've seen a million times before.
    Timothy doesn't promote Bond well.

    This is true, and also true of Craig. That's the hidden advantages of someone like Brosnan and Moore, they will happily promote their asses off. That's half of what being Bond is. People won't see you as just a guy in a movie, they will see you as James Bond, so you have to be comfortable living that persona. Dalton and Craig weren't. A Bond actor should always be equal parts showman and performer.

    Yes and no.

    I'll give you that DC isn't great at promoting the film and Dalts was worse. But how much did Sean do? His 'I'd like to kill that damned James Bond' is as infamous as Dan's 'slash my wrists' comment but didn't really harm his public image or the box office.

    Rog and Brozza were a producers dream as they took all the publicity in their stride. Given between them they have several of the weaker films you wonder what box office their films would've done with a Dalton in the role? Is it possible to actually put a figure on the actor's enthusiasm to promote the film?

    I would say it's possible to argue that Dalton's natural reticence transmitted itself to the American public with LTK. Without doubt Brozza was more loved by the American public and you havevto wonder how much of this comes down to his ease with doing the talk show circuit.
    The cinematography in SF and SP is the best the series has ever seen.

    Not if you've watched TB, OHMSS, YOLT, TLD or MR in the very, very, very long time it isn't.

    They certainly have the showiest cinematography we've seen, but I don't count that as being the best. Most Bond films have a natural feel to the locations, you feel like you're actually there. In SP or SF, everything is cranked up to 11 so that it no longer adds to but detracts from the story at hand. With many of the earlier films, you can appreciate the cinematography, but at the same time it doesn't get in the way of watching the movie. In SP or SF, you have no choose but to pass judgement on how it looks, because that frequently seems to be the driving force around which the scenes are constructed. It's distracting. Bond films don't need this level of beautification and dressing up. Just let the story speak for itself. Saying SF/P has the best cinematography is like saying QoS has the best editing, because you really notice it. Well, yes, but once you learn more about it, that's not necessarily a positive.

    I can see where you're coming from but the counter argument would be that in films like TMWGG and the Glen era you notice that the cinematography is like a TV movie.

    I'll admit that the Mendes films do look a bit too glossy at times and lack the grit of DN but I'd take Deakins over any other Bond cinematographer every day.
  • Posts: 15,115
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.
  • Posts: 15,115
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.
    For me the most distasteful remarks have been Craig's 'wrist slash'. Joke or not, they had a negative impact on my anticipation for SP. I was quite disappointed that this was allowed to percolate out there without retraction or clarification for two years. Dalton's comments appear quite meek in comparison.

    BTW: Craig said something similar to Dalton in an interview around the time that QoS was released, but I recognized at that point it was because of concerns about the impact of the financial crisis (everyone was crapping themselves at that time) and MGM's woes.
  • Posts: 15,115
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.

    I think it may have sealed his fate. You don't need many people to notice or remember. Or it was at least symptomatic of audiences' dislike of Dalton.
  • Posts: 16,162
    I believe he said it in an interview for Bondage magazine for The James Bond 007 Fan Club. Those who would have read it would have likely bought that issue, which BTW wasn't exactly readily available in too many stores.
    I didn't catch that article until sometime later after I joined the club during that interminable 6 year gap.
    It's a pity that lately I've felt Tim's words could easily apply to this current era. 4 year gaps now seem to be the expected wait, and rarely does it seem that Eon are planning too far ahead for the series' future.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.
    For me the most distasteful remarks have been Craig's 'wrist slash'. Joke or not, they had a negative impact on my anticipation for SP. I was quite disappointed that this was allowed to percolate out there without retraction or clarification for two years. Dalton's comments appear quite meek in comparison.

    BTW: Craig said something similar to Dalton in an interview around the time that QoS was released, but I recognized at that point it was because of concerns about the impact of the financial crisis (everyone was crapping themselves at that time) and MGM's woes.

    The wrist slash comment was out of order for sure.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.

    I think it may have sealed his fate. You don't need many people to notice or remember. Or it was at least symptomatic of audiences' dislike of Dalton.

    It certainly would have given MGM/EON more of an impetus to get rid of him,yes.
  • Posts: 3,333
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I saw it in the U.S. in two different cinemas. 6 times at one and 5 at the other.
    The first weekend there was an okay, but not overwhelming amount of audience members. You didn't have to worry about anyone with a hat sitting in front of you, or even finding a decent seat.

    I probably saw it about once a week until it disappeared from cinemas late September. The matinee I caught on the last Thursday it played, I was the pretty much only one in attendance. I think there might have been one homeless guy in the back row using the film to get a couple hours sleep.
    Thanks for your feedback. Though in fairness to most big blockbuster movies reaching the end of their cinematic cycle, there tends to be only the odd sprinkling of people in attendance in most auditoriums. Strangely, I have a recollection of going to see Silence of the Lambs on its first day of release in a cinema on Hollywood Boulevard. No, it wasn't Grauman's Egyptian Theatre but some flea-pit dive that's probably not there anymore as it looked like something leftover from the 1920s that was ready fall down. It might have been the El Capitan Movie Theatre? Anyway, the auditorium wasn't busy at all despite it being the first week of release. Same goes for MI:2 which I saw first day in Times Square - practically empty.

    But it was fun reading your comments about viewing LTK in 89, which I've taken the liberty of editing above. Funnily enough, I've just replayed the opening gun barrel for LTK to just remind me of how it sounded - and it's pretty lousy - just as I remember.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondsum wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I saw it in the U.S. in two different cinemas. 6 times at one and 5 at the other.
    The first weekend there was an okay, but not overwhelming amount of audience members. You didn't have to worry about anyone with a hat sitting in front of you, or even finding a decent seat.

    I probably saw it about once a week until it disappeared from cinemas late September. The matinee I caught on the last Thursday it played, I was the pretty much only one in attendance. I think there might have been one homeless guy in the back row using the film to get a couple hours sleep.
    Thanks for your feedback. Though in fairness to most big blockbuster movies reaching the end of their cinematic cycle, there tends to be only the odd sprinkling of people in attendance in most auditoriums. Strangely, I have a recollection of going to see Silence of the Lambs on its first day of release in a cinema on Hollywood Boulevard. No, it wasn't Grauman's Egyptian Theatre but some flea-pit dive that's probably not there anymore as it looked like something leftover from the 1920s that was ready fall down. It might have been the El Capitan Movie Theatre? Anyway, the auditorium wasn't busy at all despite it being the first week of release. Same goes for MI:2 which I saw first day in Times Square - practically empty.

    But it was fun reading your comments about viewing LTK in 89, which I've taken the liberty of editing above. Funnily enough, I've just replayed the opening gun barrel for LTK to just remind me of how it sounded - and it's pretty lousy - just as I remember.

    It came 2nd in the Gunbarrel Elimination Game a few months ago ;)

  • Posts: 15,115
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.
    For me the most distasteful remarks have been Craig's 'wrist slash'. Joke or not, they had a negative impact on my anticipation for SP. I was quite disappointed that this was allowed to percolate out there without retraction or clarification for two years. Dalton's comments appear quite meek in comparison.

    BTW: Craig said something similar to Dalton in an interview around the time that QoS was released, but I recognized at that point it was because of concerns about the impact of the financial crisis (everyone was crapping themselves at that time) and MGM's woes.

    I don't think what Dalton said was crass. For all we know he was vending his frustrations: "you may not all like me as Bond but I'm the Bond you got and if you keep getting hostile towards me in the role there may never be another Bond".
  • Posts: 3,333
    Tsk tsk @barryt007. It just goes to show how off base and fruitless these Elimination Games actually are then.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.
    For me the most distasteful remarks have been Craig's 'wrist slash'. Joke or not, they had a negative impact on my anticipation for SP. I was quite disappointed that this was allowed to percolate out there without retraction or clarification for two years. Dalton's comments appear quite meek in comparison.

    BTW: Craig said something similar to Dalton in an interview around the time that QoS was released, but I recognized at that point it was because of concerns about the impact of the financial crisis (everyone was crapping themselves at that time) and MGM's woes.

    The wrist slash comment was out of order for sure.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dalton saying during filming that LTK might be the last Bond film hurt both the movie and his whole tenure I think.

    It's not like anyone was really paying attention. That was the sad part; it was the first time in my memory (I was 27 at the time) that a Bond film seemed to generate no excitement or press leading up to it's production or release. That alone gave weight to his words (which no one but me, or so it seemed at the time, paid attention to, anyway).

    I paid attention when I heard about it and so did others. Hardly something to fill one with confidence or enthusiasm.

    I was quite annoyed when he said it,i was 19 and firmly into Bond fandom,i didn't think we needed to hear that.

    I think it may have sealed his fate. You don't need many people to notice or remember. Or it was at least symptomatic of audiences' dislike of Dalton.

    It certainly would have given MGM/EON more of an impetus to get rid of him,yes.

    Fin2SMALL.jpg

    "The last, you say? THE LASTT???! It s YOUR last, that s damn sure."
Sign In or Register to comment.