It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That certainly is controversial. You've achieved the impossible by actually managing to come up with 5 less funny ideas than the Tarzan yell - which is something I never thought I'd say.
Maybe turn your comedy scalpel to the double take pigeon and the spiral car jump?
I'd agree with that. LALD was OK but not great and DAF and TMWTGG suck more than Sucky McSuck of Sucksville.
Disagree on this one. LALD was epic IMO, but I wouldn't miss the two films either side of it.
I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with that one. I doubt it is very controversial, though.
I think the problem too was the context of the inexorable slide into self-parody and send-up in the Bond films in general from YOLT onwards (excluding OHMSS) into DAF. This lighter approach carried on into the Roger Moore era also. So perhaps there was a more general shift here moreso than anything Connery in particular did. I think that by this time Connery had stopped viewing the Bond films as any kind of art and looked on them as merely money-making ventures to fund other personal film projects.
I think it is unfair to blame Roger Moore for the era. Take example the Superman movies and how similar they were in tone to the James Bond movies at the time. The same with the Indiana Jones Films. Look at the dark forlorn tones of Man of Steel and SF. I don't really see how the forlorn tone of SF is Flemingesque. In fact, I will argue the opposite. Nothing in Fleming Bond would suggest Bond had an unhappy unresolved childhood. This is more of a slap at Fleming, intentional or not. Tone of YOLT (Fleming) was more of stoicism than forlorn.
Male emotional baggage is a feminist invention, and has no place in any Bond genre. There is a difference between "baggage" and an "emotional response". I actually think the Bros era was probably the proper tone for the Bond films.
Although I think as flemigesque qualities go, I think OP would be in the top 5. I don't understand why Vijay was in the movie, I am sure he is a likeable person, I have always been curious about his central role including the stupid tennis act during the chase.
To be fair. Live and Let Die was good so I'll give him a pass on that. However DAF and TMWTGG were very terrible films but most of that I blame on Mankiwitz.
Check this out @Murdock
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7513/how-would-you-fix-the-man-with-golden-gun-/p2#Item_41
Oh God no. That's just as bad as "they'll print anything these days" or "saved by the bell". Puns that were so bad and so telegraphed you could see them coming a mile away.
For me the worst of the lot was "now...you said something about...going down together"
To be fair, all the dialogue in DAD was shit, not just that line.
I think the only good line was Bond...James Bond. ;)
But he delivered that line in the company of Madonna, so doesn't count ;-)
Just for clarity, I was not blaming Roger Moore for anything at all in my post above. It was merely the forces at play at the time from the powers that be in Eon that led the James Bond films to go down the path of self-destructive self-parody and silliness in place of genuine interest and character development. It was the sign o' the times more than anything else, the factor of who was the leading actor in the James Bond role quite apart.
Another one, her cameo doesn't bother me and I SMILE at the "tip up" line. True! :-?? :-?? :-??
Very interesting post. I don't agree with everything in it, but very interesting nonetheless.
2) With a better script, basically no creative control and the Babs and MGW of 2006 onwards, Lee Tamahori could've delivered a good Bond film.
Let me elaborate. I think when he's doing the right sort of film, Tamahori is a pretty good director. I saw The Devils Double and I was surprised at how good it was, he has a talent for action scenes (look at the fencing scene in DAD), and can do the grittier stuff well too.
The problem with Tamahori is that when he does action films he goes overboard and fills them with tons of CGI. Another problem is that problem is that not only did he have a bad script, but he had the producers egging him on every step of the way, letting him include all the references and stupid ideas he wanted.
So let's say that Purvis and Wade didn't write it. Somebody brilliant did. The producers are in the mindset they have been since post DAD. Tamahori is given pretty much no creative control, all he's allowed to do is to direct what's on the page, and the producers have made it clear that little to no CGI is to be used.
All we'd be left with is Tamahori as a director. And I think that we'd end up with one of the better Bond films.
@SirHenryLeeChaChing I agree on Connery in YOLT. I can't see the boredom everyone else seems to. I won't argue that he was in his prime but I think he gave a good performance and he was a million times better than he was in Diamonds.
Well, I am fine with your point #1.
#2) Tamahori - I do not know his other work, so cannot really comment. But your "ifs" are sooooooooo very big. IF he had no creative control (but he is the director ...), and IF there were no CGI allowed (but the producers wanted that, right?)- so basically you would need to change Barbara, Michael, and the entire mindset at that time which was late 90's. Change so much. But I guess you are saying he can direct action and actors. So I cannot agree, too many unknowns (including of course that I do not know Tamahori's other films).
Since lots of my points line up with what's happening now (no Purvis and Wade, the producers have better quality control), an easier way of putting it is like this: If he was allowed no (or very little) creative control, Tamahori could make a good Bond film today.
Maybe; I would need to see his other films. Other posters here probably do know his work.
With those constraints, maybe I could even make a fine Bond film director. Or you. ;)
I liked Tamahori's work in XXX, but then, I like that film a lot better than DAD.
(is that controversial enough?)
Make him Asian or Indian and you're changing his nationality. A black Bond would just mean changing his appearance, which has been done many times before.
Him being gay would be changing the character completely. Changing his nationality or sexuality is not the same as changing his appearance (which again, has been done many times before).
:)) That's even better than the old "it's like a white Shaft!" line. No. It is NOTHING like a Roots remake with a white guy.
Bond is a character that has changed his appearance many times. Daniel Craig looks nothing like Flemings original creation. And his race isn't a big part of his character (like Shafts is), so making him black would really just be changing his appearance.
Kunta Kinte is a slave. Slavery was a real, horrible thing. People were captured, treated like animals based on the colour of their skin. You can't compare a white actor playing a slave to a black actor playing James Bond.
I don't need Bond to be black. I'm not suggesting they make him black for the sake of being PC or anything like that. I'm just saying that if a black actor was cast, I'd be perfectly fine with it.
And before anybody gives me the old "Fleming wrote Bond as a white man!" line, I'd like to say this.
Fleming wrote Bond as a white man with blue grey eyes and short black hair that fell a bit on his forehead. He was a heavy drinker and smoker. He drove an old grey convertible Bentley. Vesper (?) said that he looked like this man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoagy_Carmichael
Fleming did not write Bond as a man who drove around in a gadget packed Aston Martin DB5, or a one liner spouting playboy who had an underwater car, or a ripped blonde hardman who didn't smoke and treated M like a surrogate mother, etc.
If you're a Fleming purist then fine. Fair enough. But don't see who you can be fine with all of the above, but then treat changing his skin colour as a despicable act that would mean the end of the series.
You've been a fan since the 60s. Nearly all your life. A View To A Kill, Die Another Day, none of this has stopped you from being a fan. But changing Bond's skin colour would?