Controversial opinions about Bond films

1460461463465466707

Comments

  • Posts: 17,819
    Remington wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here's a controversial opinion: When Bond 7 comes, Neal Pervis and Robert Wade HAVE to go. Their stories are drying up. If James Bond needs any freshness for the next guy to play him, it's new writing, above all else.

    Every time I see a Tarantino film or his name being mentioned, it only reminds me how much is left to be desired in the script department in the Bond films (especially dialogue).

    No doubt the Bond films need some new script writers.
    jobo wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here's a controversial opinion: When Bond 7 comes, Neal Pervis and Robert Wade HAVE to go. Their stories are drying up. If James Bond needs any freshness for the next guy to play him, it's new writing, above all else.


    That is as far away from controversial as it could possibly get on this site! I don't think there's any fan of P&W left. That would be controversial if someone claimed to be!

    It's not even that they're bad, it's just that they have been more miss than hit. Even Richard Maibaum sat a every couple of films out. Nothing else that they have done has been hits. That's probably one of the reasons why DC kept debating coming back: Barbara needs to get rid of them! Based not coming back originally for Spectre and their comments about fitting/writing in a James Bond in modern times, is a sign that they are DONE! WHY ARE THEY STILL AROUND?! No wonder Danny Boyle and John Hodge left: They didn't want THEM in particular to mess up their script! End of rant, sorry.

    I don't think anyone would argue with the points in this rant. I feel the scripts are particularly bad in the films from the last decade or so – even the highly praised SF (can't remember how much involvement they had here or not).

    I think the majority of the plot is theirs. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Logan's main contribution was the Q scene and the scenes in China. I could be wrong.

    I see. I find their plot generally a bit "meh", and the dialogue awkward at times, which reflects on the viewing experience of the films. I wonder if they'll have any involvement in Bond 25 now that Boyle and Hodge have left the production.

    I recommend Some Kind of Hero. It goes into detail about earlier drafts. At one point, Felix was going to have a scene with M.

    I've heard about that book (it's probably been mentioned here before); I should probably put it on my list of books to get. Don't know if it would have worked out, but Felix meeting M could have been interesting – if done right.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,694
    Two things that truly need to happen once Daniel Craig leaves, to make James Bond fresher. First get rid of Purvis and Wade. See my previous posts, for my opinions. Second, hire a action director, no more artsy drama directors.
    P.S. Where I get controversial: start adapting books not by Ian Fleming. I would rather that happen with new writers than a "original" screenplay by Purvis and Wade. I would say start with Colonel Sun, but P & W have already butchered the good material with it. My list for adaptations in no particular order. For Special Services, Icebreaker, Nobody Lives Forever for John Gardner. The Union Trilogy as a whole shot for one actor, filmed if possible, back-to-back-to-back style together. Also The Man With The Red Tattoo, all by Raymond Benson. Even though they aren't liked much, Devil May Care and Solo for the ending of a James Bond, but made modern. For a reboot, I would start with Carte Blanche. It's a good place for a new cinematic Bond to start. Sorry about my rambling, I didn't expect to go this far with this post. My opinions, at this point for me any writer for James Bond is fresher than Pervis and Wade. Take a chance EON!
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    Remington wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here's a controversial opinion: When Bond 7 comes, Neal Pervis and Robert Wade HAVE to go. Their stories are drying up. If James Bond needs any freshness for the next guy to play him, it's new writing, above all else.

    Every time I see a Tarantino film or his name being mentioned, it only reminds me how much is left to be desired in the script department in the Bond films (especially dialogue).

    No doubt the Bond films need some new script writers.
    jobo wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Here's a controversial opinion: When Bond 7 comes, Neal Pervis and Robert Wade HAVE to go. Their stories are drying up. If James Bond needs any freshness for the next guy to play him, it's new writing, above all else.


    That is as far away from controversial as it could possibly get on this site! I don't think there's any fan of P&W left. That would be controversial if someone claimed to be!

    It's not even that they're bad, it's just that they have been more miss than hit. Even Richard Maibaum sat a every couple of films out. Nothing else that they have done has been hits. That's probably one of the reasons why DC kept debating coming back: Barbara needs to get rid of them! Based not coming back originally for Spectre and their comments about fitting/writing in a James Bond in modern times, is a sign that they are DONE! WHY ARE THEY STILL AROUND?! No wonder Danny Boyle and John Hodge left: They didn't want THEM in particular to mess up their script! End of rant, sorry.

    I don't think anyone would argue with the points in this rant. I feel the scripts are particularly bad in the films from the last decade or so – even the highly praised SF (can't remember how much involvement they had here or not).

    I think the majority of the plot is theirs. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Logan's main contribution was the Q scene and the scenes in China. I could be wrong.

    I see. I find their plot generally a bit "meh", and the dialogue awkward at times, which reflects on the viewing experience of the films. I wonder if they'll have any involvement in Bond 25 now that Boyle and Hodge have left the production.

    I recommend Some Kind of Hero. It goes into detail about earlier drafts. At one point, Felix was going to have a scene with M.

    Cool idea.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,694

    I recommend Some Kind of Hero. It goes into detail about earlier drafts. At one point, Felix was going to have a scene with M.[/quote]

    Cool idea.[/quote]

    It's on my Christmas list. I take it it goes all the way up to Spectre?
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    I think the scene involved Felix saying that the CIA wouldn't be giving MI6 their intelligence anymore because M can't be trusted anymore.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The raid on Kristatos’ shipping warehouse by Bond and Columbo and his men beats the Hell out of any action scene from SF or SP.

    Couldn't agree more, one of my favorite action sequences in the series, and yet another welcome addition to instances of Bond and a bunch of allies going against a villain and a bunch of foes at once.
  • Posts: 16,223
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Two things that truly need to happen once Daniel Craig leaves, to make James Bond fresher. First get rid of Purvis and Wade. See my previous posts, for my opinions. Second, hire a action director, no more artsy drama directors.
    P.S. Where I get controversial: start adapting books not by Ian Fleming. I would rather that happen with new writers than a "original" screenplay by Purvis and Wade. I would say start with Colonel Sun, but P & W have already butchered the good material with it. My list for adaptations in no particular order. For Special Services, Icebreaker, Nobody Lives Forever for John Gardner. The Union Trilogy as a whole shot for one actor, filmed if possible, back-to-back-to-back style together. Also The Man With The Red Tattoo, all by Raymond Benson. Even though they aren't liked much, Devil May Care and Solo for the ending of a James Bond, but made modern. For a reboot, I would start with Carte Blanche. It's a good place for a new cinematic Bond to start. Sorry about my rambling, I didn't expect to go this far with this post. My opinions, at this point for me any writer for James Bond is fresher than Pervis and Wade. Take a chance EON!

    I'm all for Eon adapting the continuation novels beginning with either COLONEL SUN or the Gardners. Imagine getting the title of the next film announced at the end credits!
    That would be wonderful. Although some say the Garnder novels are sub standard, Eon would probably alter the stories to some degree for their films as they did with Fleming.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2018 Posts: 6,382
    bondjames wrote: »
    How can you not like Nobody Does it Better?!!!!
    In the immortal words of Alan Partridge: "Clang, clang a lang a lang a lang a lang a lang....clang a lang..!"

    I sometimes do the "Clang, clang a lang a lang a lang a lang a lang....clang a lang..!" bit when I hum the NDIB tune! :))
    It's a great motif imho. Instantly memorable.

    It really is!
    Birdleson wrote: »

    That's a fantastic montage. So many great scenes.

    Why is there more Stacey Sutton than Vesper Lynd?
  • Posts: 19,339
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Two things that truly need to happen once Daniel Craig leaves, to make James Bond fresher. First get rid of Purvis and Wade. See my previous posts, for my opinions. Second, hire a action director, no more artsy drama directors.
    P.S. Where I get controversial: start adapting books not by Ian Fleming. I would rather that happen with new writers than a "original" screenplay by Purvis and Wade. I would say start with Colonel Sun, but P & W have already butchered the good material with it. My list for adaptations in no particular order. For Special Services, Icebreaker, Nobody Lives Forever for John Gardner. The Union Trilogy as a whole shot for one actor, filmed if possible, back-to-back-to-back style together. Also The Man With The Red Tattoo, all by Raymond Benson. Even though they aren't liked much, Devil May Care and Solo for the ending of a James Bond, but made modern. For a reboot, I would start with Carte Blanche. It's a good place for a new cinematic Bond to start. Sorry about my rambling, I didn't expect to go this far with this post. My opinions, at this point for me any writer for James Bond is fresher than Pervis and Wade. Take a chance EON!

    I'm all for Eon adapting the continuation novels beginning with either COLONEL SUN or the Gardners. Imagine getting the title of the next film announced at the end credits!
    That would be wonderful. Although some say the Garnder novels are sub standard, Eon would probably alter the stories to some degree for their films as they did with Fleming.

    Which I don't think they are,i haven't read all of them but,with the exception of 'Brokenclaw' I like them all.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Possibly a controversial opinion, possibly not. But I don't feel Dalton ever had a decent punch up in either of his films. Most of his battling with Necros in TLD was wrestling, Ditto in LTK. In fact, by far the best fight in a Dalton film is between the butler/agent and Necros in the kitchen in TLD.

    Strange when we all consider Dalton a harder, more callous Bond.

    Connery had several good ones, Moore had a couple of decent ones. Lazenby's looked bone crunching. Brozza had a near perfect one with Sean Bean in the room with all the cogs and gears in GE. Craig has had a couple of crackers too. Just can't think of a good Dalton one.
  • Posts: 16,223
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Possibly a controversial opinion, possibly not. But I don't feel Dalton ever had a decent punch up in either of his films. Most of his battling with Necros in TLD was wrestling, Ditto in LTK. In fact, by far the best fight in a Dalton film is between the butler/agent and Necros in the kitchen in TLD.

    Strange when we all consider Dalton a harder, more callous Bond.

    Connery had several good ones, Moore had a couple of decent ones. Lazenby's looked bone crunching. Brozza had a near perfect one with Sean Bean in the room with all the cogs and gears in GE. Craig has had a couple of crackers too. Just can't think of a good Dalton one.

    The jail break fight is so late into TLD it doesn't exactly showcase Tim's hand to hand combat skills or give that great a first impression. I still love the scene, though.
    The Barrelhaead Bar brawl is more in the style of ROAD HOUSE or a classic western. Tim has some good moments there, but there was never really a punch up scene for Tim a'la Red Grant. I don't count the Necros fight as I see it more of an aerial stunt.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Possibly a controversial opinion, possibly not. But I don't feel Dalton ever had a decent punch up in either of his films. Most of his battling with Necros in TLD was wrestling, Ditto in LTK. In fact, by far the best fight in a Dalton film is between the butler/agent and Necros in the kitchen in TLD.

    Strange when we all consider Dalton a harder, more callous Bond.

    Connery had several good ones, Moore had a couple of decent ones. Lazenby's looked bone crunching. Brozza had a near perfect one with Sean Bean in the room with all the cogs and gears in GE. Craig has had a couple of crackers too. Just can't think of a good Dalton one.

    The jail break fight is so late into TLD it doesn't exactly showcase Tim's hand to hand combat skills or give that great a first impression. I still love the scene, though.
    The Barrelhaead Bar brawl is more in the style of ROAD HOUSE or a classic western. Tim has some good moments there, but there was never really a punch up scene for Tim a'la Red Grant. I don't count the Necros fight as I see it more of an aerial stunt.
    I think it was a missed opportunity of his tenure. His fights were more in the splaying style of Harrison Ford (I noticed that when I revisited the early Indy films recently), as was his running. It didn't suit his harder edged portrayal. If they'd given him just one good close quarters hardcore fight like the FRWL or GE encounter I think it would have elevated his portrayal in the minds of viewers. I think it would have been preferable if it was in LTK with Sanchez, due to the darker tone of the film, but I wouldn't give up the lighter finale for anything.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Possibly a controversial opinion, possibly not. But I don't feel Dalton ever had a decent punch up in either of his films. Most of his battling with Necros in TLD was wrestling, Ditto in LTK. In fact, by far the best fight in a Dalton film is between the butler/agent and Necros in the kitchen in TLD.

    Strange when we all consider Dalton a harder, more callous Bond.

    Connery had several good ones, Moore had a couple of decent ones. Lazenby's looked bone crunching. Brozza had a near perfect one with Sean Bean in the room with all the cogs and gears in GE. Craig has had a couple of crackers too. Just can't think of a good Dalton one.

    The jail break fight is so late into TLD it doesn't exactly showcase Tim's hand to hand combat skills or give that great a first impression. I still love the scene, though.
    The Barrelhaead Bar brawl is more in the style of ROAD HOUSE or a classic western. Tim has some good moments there, but there was never really a punch up scene for Tim a'la Red Grant. I don't count the Necros fight as I see it more of an aerial stunt.
    I think it was a missed opportunity of his tenure. His fights were more in the splaying style of Harrison Ford (I noticed that when I revisited the early Indy films recently), as was his running. It didn't suit his harder edged portrayal. If they'd given him just one good close quarters hardcore fight like the FRWL or GE encounter I think it would have elevated his portrayal in the minds of viewers. I think it would have been preferable if it was in LTK with Sanchez, due to the darker tone of the film, but I wouldn't give up the lighter finale for anything.

    Judging from the Bond 17 treatment, he would have finally had some good fights.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    NicNac wrote: »
    pking_3 wrote: »
    YOLT: Connery is not bored/uninterested. Rather, he is playing Bond as nonchalant.
    Been saying this all my adult life. The pace of You Only Live Twice is brisker than the previous films, and Connery's laconic, easy style may not sit as well as it did. It isn't any different though, he still delivers.

    The 'Connery looks bored' angle was mentioned once in a book somewhere and everyone has jumped on that bandwagon ever since. Lazy observation.

    The best way is to ask for actual moments, scenes, anything to prove that Connery looks bored. And I will show you a moment in an earlier film where Connery is exactly the same.
    I agree that Connery is playing nonchalant Bond in YOLT. I think the issue for me is that he plays the role just a quantum too nonchalantly for the film he is in. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion that admittedly, given the style and tone of YOLT, there wasn't much room for Connery to adjust his take on the role. He pretty much had to play it the way he played it. He couldn't have been too earnest and intense, or he would've felt out of place given the breezy style of the movie, and he couldn't have been much more relaxed or the whole thing would've felt like a vacation rather than a mission. However, I think he had the opportunity to slightly adjust his performance and give it a bit more intensity --at least in certain places--, and he didn't, so he comes across as slightly disengaged. Perhaps it just isn't Connery's thing to play the role in such a way in a film like this, one which is more relaxed than the previous ones. After all, in YOLT, Osato is not particularly threatening and Blofeld doesn't appear until rather late in the film, whereas in films like GF and TB, the tension between Bond and the villains begins to increase at an earlier point in the story, during their recurring encounters, so Bond's relaxed style is supplemented with a more pronounced sense of tension.

    It's worth pointing out that this relaxed style of playing the role probably has a great deal to do with Lewis Gilbert's influence. In all three of his films, Bond is rather nonchalant-- especially in MR, but Roger Moore is better than Connery at playing the role that way.

    I don't have this problem with Connery in DAF because he takes that nonchalant style and adds a touch of weariness and sarcasm laced with just a touch of cruelty (something Roger flirted with but within the context of a more overtly humorous style), aspects which he can act very well, and his performance and the film's tone and perfectly in sync.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2018 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    pking_3 wrote: »
    YOLT: Connery is not bored/uninterested. Rather, he is playing Bond as nonchalant.
    Been saying this all my adult life. The pace of You Only Live Twice is brisker than the previous films, and Connery's laconic, easy style may not sit as well as it did. It isn't any different though, he still delivers.

    The 'Connery looks bored' angle was mentioned once in a book somewhere and everyone has jumped on that bandwagon ever since. Lazy observation.

    The best way is to ask for actual moments, scenes, anything to prove that Connery looks bored. And I will show you a moment in an earlier film where Connery is exactly the same.
    I agree that Connery is playing nonchalant Bond in YOLT. I think the issue for me is that he plays the role just a quantum too nonchalantly for the film he is in. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion that admittedly, given the style and tone of YOLT, there wasn't much room for Connery to adjust his take on the role. He pretty much had to play it the way he played it. He couldn't have been too earnest and intense, or he would've felt out of place given the breezy style of the movie, and he couldn't have been much more relaxed or the whole thing would've felt like a vacation rather than a mission. However, I think he had the opportunity to slightly adjust his performance and give it a bit more intensity --at least in certain places--, and he didn't, so he comes across as slightly disengaged. Perhaps it just isn't Connery's thing to play the role in such a way in a film like this, one which is more relaxed than the previous ones. After all, in YOLT, Osato is not particularly threatening and Blofeld doesn't appear until rather late in the film, whereas in films like GF and TB, the tension between Bond and the villains begins to increase at an earlier point in the story, during their recurring encounters, so Bond's relaxed style is supplemented with a more pronounced sense of tension.

    It's worth pointing out that this relaxed style of playing the role probably has a great deal to do with Lewis Gilbert's influence. In all three of his films, Bond is rather nonchalant-- especially in MR, but Roger Moore is better than Connery at playing the role that way.

    I don't have this problem with Connery in DAF because he takes that nonchalant style and adds a touch of weariness and sarcasm laced with just a touch of cruelty (something Roger flirted with but within the context of a more overtly humorous style), aspects which he can act very well, and his performance and the film's tone and perfectly in sync.
    Nicely put. I agree on your assessment of Connery in both YOLT and DAF. I find the last three Hamilton entries have a slightly more cruel Bond, and I like that element of the character being showcased on screen. It's less apparent in GF for some reason, but perhaps was the right approach for that film's tone.

    You make an excellent point about Osato not being an imposing threat either. Connery basically towers (literally as well as figuratively) over everyone in the film, including the diminutive Pleasance. So perhaps that plays into the impression that he is bored.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    mattjoes wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    pking_3 wrote: »
    YOLT: Connery is not bored/uninterested. Rather, he is playing Bond as nonchalant.
    Been saying this all my adult life. The pace of You Only Live Twice is brisker than the previous films, and Connery's laconic, easy style may not sit as well as it did. It isn't any different though, he still delivers.

    The 'Connery looks bored' angle was mentioned once in a book somewhere and everyone has jumped on that bandwagon ever since. Lazy observation.

    The best way is to ask for actual moments, scenes, anything to prove that Connery looks bored. And I will show you a moment in an earlier film where Connery is exactly the same.
    I agree that Connery is playing nonchalant Bond in YOLT. I think the issue for me is that he plays the role just a quantum too nonchalantly for the film he is in. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion that admittedly, given the style and tone of YOLT, there wasn't much room for Connery to adjust his take on the role. He pretty much had to play it the way he played it. He couldn't have been too earnest and intense, or he would've felt out of place given the breezy style of the movie, and he couldn't have been much more relaxed or the whole thing would've felt like a vacation rather than a mission. However, I think he had the opportunity to slightly adjust his performance and give it a bit more intensity --at least in certain places--, and he didn't, so he comes across as slightly disengaged. Perhaps it just isn't Connery's thing to play the role in such a way in a film like this, one which is more relaxed than the previous ones. After all, in YOLT, Osato is not particularly threatening and Blofeld doesn't appear until rather late in the film, whereas in films like GF and TB, the tension between Bond and the villains begins to increase at an earlier point in the story, during their recurring encounters, so Bond's relaxed style is supplemented with a more pronounced sense of tension.

    It's worth pointing out that this relaxed style of playing the role probably has a great deal to do with Lewis Gilbert's influence. In all three of his films, Bond is rather nonchalant-- especially in MR, but Roger Moore is better than Connery at playing the role that way.

    I don't have this problem with Connery in DAF because he takes that nonchalant style and adds a touch of weariness and sarcasm laced with just a touch of cruelty (something Roger flirted with but within the context of a more overtly humorous style), aspects which he can act very well, and his performance and the film's tone and perfectly in sync.

    Agreed on this @mattjoes

    Off topic, slightly, the point you made about Gilbert/Hamilton directing their respective Bond's a certain way, made me think about how underappreciated Moore's versatility was, and still is. He was (as you stated) quite sarcastic and cruel in LALD and TMWTGG. Laid back and casual in TSWLM and MR. Straight and focused in FYEO, OP and AVTAK.

    I don't think many give him enough credit for the amount of times he adapted his performance to suit the screenplay and direction.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Roadphill wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    pking_3 wrote: »
    YOLT: Connery is not bored/uninterested. Rather, he is playing Bond as nonchalant.
    Been saying this all my adult life. The pace of You Only Live Twice is brisker than the previous films, and Connery's laconic, easy style may not sit as well as it did. It isn't any different though, he still delivers.

    The 'Connery looks bored' angle was mentioned once in a book somewhere and everyone has jumped on that bandwagon ever since. Lazy observation.

    The best way is to ask for actual moments, scenes, anything to prove that Connery looks bored. And I will show you a moment in an earlier film where Connery is exactly the same.
    I agree that Connery is playing nonchalant Bond in YOLT. I think the issue for me is that he plays the role just a quantum too nonchalantly for the film he is in. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion that admittedly, given the style and tone of YOLT, there wasn't much room for Connery to adjust his take on the role. He pretty much had to play it the way he played it. He couldn't have been too earnest and intense, or he would've felt out of place given the breezy style of the movie, and he couldn't have been much more relaxed or the whole thing would've felt like a vacation rather than a mission. However, I think he had the opportunity to slightly adjust his performance and give it a bit more intensity --at least in certain places--, and he didn't, so he comes across as slightly disengaged. Perhaps it just isn't Connery's thing to play the role in such a way in a film like this, one which is more relaxed than the previous ones. After all, in YOLT, Osato is not particularly threatening and Blofeld doesn't appear until rather late in the film, whereas in films like GF and TB, the tension between Bond and the villains begins to increase at an earlier point in the story, during their recurring encounters, so Bond's relaxed style is supplemented with a more pronounced sense of tension.

    It's worth pointing out that this relaxed style of playing the role probably has a great deal to do with Lewis Gilbert's influence. In all three of his films, Bond is rather nonchalant-- especially in MR, but Roger Moore is better than Connery at playing the role that way.

    I don't have this problem with Connery in DAF because he takes that nonchalant style and adds a touch of weariness and sarcasm laced with just a touch of cruelty (something Roger flirted with but within the context of a more overtly humorous style), aspects which he can act very well, and his performance and the film's tone and perfectly in sync.

    Agreed on this @mattjoes

    Off topic, slightly, the point you made about Gilbert/Hamilton directing their respective Bond's a certain way, made me think about how underappreciated Moore's versatility was, and still is. He was (as you stated) quite sarcastic and cruel in LALD and TMWTGG. Laid back and casual in TSWLM and MR. Straight and focused in FYEO, OP and AVTAK.

    I don't think many give him enough credit for the amount of times he adapted his performance to suit the screenplay and direction.
    I agree and have mentioned this versatility a couple of times previously too. I think it's a very important consideration for the next Bond actor, because it gives the film makers freedom to vary tone and approach while still getting a consistent performance. He was subtle in the manner in which he varied it, but it worked perfectly for every film. TSWLM/MR are a good back to back in order to see this.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,057
    Roadphill wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    pking_3 wrote: »
    YOLT: Connery is not bored/uninterested. Rather, he is playing Bond as nonchalant.
    Been saying this all my adult life. The pace of You Only Live Twice is brisker than the previous films, and Connery's laconic, easy style may not sit as well as it did. It isn't any different though, he still delivers.

    The 'Connery looks bored' angle was mentioned once in a book somewhere and everyone has jumped on that bandwagon ever since. Lazy observation.

    The best way is to ask for actual moments, scenes, anything to prove that Connery looks bored. And I will show you a moment in an earlier film where Connery is exactly the same.
    I agree that Connery is playing nonchalant Bond in YOLT. I think the issue for me is that he plays the role just a quantum too nonchalantly for the film he is in. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion that admittedly, given the style and tone of YOLT, there wasn't much room for Connery to adjust his take on the role. He pretty much had to play it the way he played it. He couldn't have been too earnest and intense, or he would've felt out of place given the breezy style of the movie, and he couldn't have been much more relaxed or the whole thing would've felt like a vacation rather than a mission. However, I think he had the opportunity to slightly adjust his performance and give it a bit more intensity --at least in certain places--, and he didn't, so he comes across as slightly disengaged. Perhaps it just isn't Connery's thing to play the role in such a way in a film like this, one which is more relaxed than the previous ones. After all, in YOLT, Osato is not particularly threatening and Blofeld doesn't appear until rather late in the film, whereas in films like GF and TB, the tension between Bond and the villains begins to increase at an earlier point in the story, during their recurring encounters, so Bond's relaxed style is supplemented with a more pronounced sense of tension.

    It's worth pointing out that this relaxed style of playing the role probably has a great deal to do with Lewis Gilbert's influence. In all three of his films, Bond is rather nonchalant-- especially in MR, but Roger Moore is better than Connery at playing the role that way.

    I don't have this problem with Connery in DAF because he takes that nonchalant style and adds a touch of weariness and sarcasm laced with just a touch of cruelty (something Roger flirted with but within the context of a more overtly humorous style), aspects which he can act very well, and his performance and the film's tone and perfectly in sync.

    Agreed on this @mattjoes

    Off topic, slightly, the point you made about Gilbert/Hamilton directing their respective Bond's a certain way, made me think about how underappreciated Moore's versatility was, and still is. He was (as you stated) quite sarcastic and cruel in LALD and TMWTGG. Laid back and casual in TSWLM and MR. Straight and focused in FYEO, OP and AVTAK.

    I don't think many give him enough credit for the amount of times he adapted his performance to suit the screenplay and direction.

    I agree, @Roadphill. Roger Moore was quite flexible in the role, and always impeccable in his acting.

    bondjames wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    pking_3 wrote: »
    YOLT: Connery is not bored/uninterested. Rather, he is playing Bond as nonchalant.
    Been saying this all my adult life. The pace of You Only Live Twice is brisker than the previous films, and Connery's laconic, easy style may not sit as well as it did. It isn't any different though, he still delivers.

    The 'Connery looks bored' angle was mentioned once in a book somewhere and everyone has jumped on that bandwagon ever since. Lazy observation.

    The best way is to ask for actual moments, scenes, anything to prove that Connery looks bored. And I will show you a moment in an earlier film where Connery is exactly the same.
    I agree that Connery is playing nonchalant Bond in YOLT. I think the issue for me is that he plays the role just a quantum too nonchalantly for the film he is in. I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion that admittedly, given the style and tone of YOLT, there wasn't much room for Connery to adjust his take on the role. He pretty much had to play it the way he played it. He couldn't have been too earnest and intense, or he would've felt out of place given the breezy style of the movie, and he couldn't have been much more relaxed or the whole thing would've felt like a vacation rather than a mission. However, I think he had the opportunity to slightly adjust his performance and give it a bit more intensity --at least in certain places--, and he didn't, so he comes across as slightly disengaged. Perhaps it just isn't Connery's thing to play the role in such a way in a film like this, one which is more relaxed than the previous ones. After all, in YOLT, Osato is not particularly threatening and Blofeld doesn't appear until rather late in the film, whereas in films like GF and TB, the tension between Bond and the villains begins to increase at an earlier point in the story, during their recurring encounters, so Bond's relaxed style is supplemented with a more pronounced sense of tension.

    It's worth pointing out that this relaxed style of playing the role probably has a great deal to do with Lewis Gilbert's influence. In all three of his films, Bond is rather nonchalant-- especially in MR, but Roger Moore is better than Connery at playing the role that way.

    I don't have this problem with Connery in DAF because he takes that nonchalant style and adds a touch of weariness and sarcasm laced with just a touch of cruelty (something Roger flirted with but within the context of a more overtly humorous style), aspects which he can act very well, and his performance and the film's tone and perfectly in sync.

    Agreed on this @mattjoes

    Off topic, slightly, the point you made about Gilbert/Hamilton directing their respective Bond's a certain way, made me think about how underappreciated Moore's versatility was, and still is. He was (as you stated) quite sarcastic and cruel in LALD and TMWTGG. Laid back and casual in TSWLM and MR. Straight and focused in FYEO, OP and AVTAK.

    I don't think many give him enough credit for the amount of times he adapted his performance to suit the screenplay and direction.
    I agree and have mentioned this versatility a couple of times previously too. I think it's a very important consideration for the next Bond actor, because it gives the film makers freedom to vary tone and approach while still getting a consistent performance. He was subtle in the manner in which he varied it, but it worked perfectly for every film. TSWLM/MR are a good back to back in order to see this.
    Interesting thought. Now that you mention it, I very much agree.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    Sounds like you're raising the kid right.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    I agree that emotional stakes can definitely elevate a scene; the brutal fight between Bond and Alec in GE is an excellent example of this. However I don’t find anything in QOS particularly memorable. I must admit I don’t even remember a character named Mitchell. I’ve only managed to sit through QOS once, and that was six years ago.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited September 2018 Posts: 2,541
    One thing I have issue with recent bond films that why aren't they using imax cameras to shoot the scenes. MI Ghost Protocol was shot 30 minutes of it , TDK was shot partially and the result were exquisite. I wish they would have used imax cameras in SP.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    Chime in anytime.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Thank you @Thunderfinger , then I will chime in x 2:

    I think David Arnold's score for QoS is the very best outside of Barry's work. And;

    QoS has grown on me immensely; it's worthy of a guy's night where Rambo films are paired with a Dirty Harry film; a Dirty Harry Film is paired with a Die Hard; Die Hard is paired with a Death Wish; A Death Wish to a Rocky; a Rocky to a QoS...
  • Octopussy - let me loose with the editor’s shears and I could re-cut that into an excellent Bond film - just cut out every stupid bit (Sittttt!!! etc) and CGI a more convincing Moore body into the action scenes to replace the woeful body double.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    peter wrote: »
    Thank you @Thunderfinger , then I will chime in x 2:

    I think David Arnold's score for QoS is the very best outside of Barry's work. And;

    QoS has grown on me immensely; it's worthy of a guy's night where Rambo films are paired with a Dirty Harry film; a Dirty Harry Film is paired with a Die Hard; Die Hard is paired with a Death Wish; A Death Wish to a Rocky; a Rocky to a QoS...

    Yeah it’s quite a brutal boys film isn’t it. I was watching it with buddies of mine after a poker night and it’s a mans film. They loved it. It’s like a mad max bond film full of testosterone fueled rage
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    I really like SF but CR/QOS makes it look like a chick flick.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,078
    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    I agree that emotional stakes can definitely elevate a scene; the brutal fight between Bond and Alec in GE is an excellent example of this. However I don’t find anything in QOS particularly memorable. I must admit I don’t even remember a character named Mitchell. I’ve only managed to sit through QOS once, and that was six years ago.

    Six years ago?!!! I think as a lot of fans are you'll be suprised how much it improves on a repeat viewing. The more you see QoS the better it gets.
  • Posts: 11,189

    peter wrote: »
    this is not my triumphant return, as @JeremyBondon would assume would happen within 24 hours. But, because I am primarily a Bond fan, I felt the need to chime in on something, and will take my exit(!): My 17 year old son and I just finished watching the Mitchell/Bond chase scene from QoS and we think it's better than anything we saw in M:Fallout-- and we liked MI: Fallout...

    That tells me, when there are emotional stakes to a scene, that scene becomes elevated. Action, for the sake of action, dies in the memory very quickly...

    I’ve grown to like QoS more than I used to but I still find there are several examples where it uses action for action’s sake.

    The opening car chase, the boat chase and the plane dogfight (which interrupts a good moment with Bond and Camille).
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,207
    Just came to notice that I quite like FYEO’s characters. Not quite a film rememberd for its characters, but I think Melina makes for an execellent Bond girl and I like Gogol’s larger involvement. And while Kristatos is only serviceable, I think Locque and Gonzalez are great henchmen. Also, Topol is one of the series’ best allies, and let’s not forget poor Luigi. Always liked that Luigi.
Sign In or Register to comment.