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
Well sure, but I'm not sure anyone claimed that would be the case forever. The post you replied to of mine was me saying "At the moment he casts a long shadow and is Bond for an awful lot of people", I never said the audience will stay loyal to him in perpetuity and never accept anyone else. We get that you don't like Craig as Bond, but for an awful lot of other people he will be hard to replace. And his sheer longevity, as well as his success, adds to that. To be honest I'm kind of not sure what you're arguing about, it feels like you just want to gripe about Craig more than you are actually disagreeing with anything we're saying.
I noticed how you phrased it incidentally: "Poll a random selection of people in the early 80's who their favourite Bond is and I imagine Moore gets a good chunk of the votes" - I think you know full well that the bigger chunk probably would have voted for Connery! Which kind of shows how some of them stick around in the consciousness longer than others.
Yes, the key word being "all".
I just wanted to back up your point.
2. None of the Bond actors were ever close to the books, not even Dalton while there are scenes and dialogues here and there, those are still not enough.
3. Roger Moore was at his most comfortable in Moonraker, I'd say, his most versatile Bond portrayal.
4. As time goes by, the Bond feel in Brosnan's films are fading, they're now looking and feeling to me like some generic action films of 90s-2000s.
5. Licence To Kill has good cinematography, For Your Eyes Only has the worst.
6. Moore Bond films aged a lot more worse than Connery's, the same for his Bond (Moore).
7. The romance in Casino Royale is not for me, believable, neither Vesper's death moved me (I think the bombastic ending ruined it for me).
8. The Actress that Craig have the most chemistry with are Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes) and Naomie Harris (Moneypenny).
9. The theme song of A View To A Kill felt too much pretentious to be a Bond theme with sound effects and the obvious styles, decent theme but tend to be a bit corny.
001) You Only Live Twice is a better film than Thunderball.
002) George Lazenby’s performance as Bond is superior to Connery’s efforts in YOLT and DAF.
003) I find Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan to be the only Bond’s who gave consistently good performances. Connery’s waning enthusiasm becomes an issue for me personally, Moore’s performance in TMWTGG isn’t quite to my tastes, and I think Craig has a couple of uneven performances in both SP and NTTD.
004) The World Is Not Enough is not as bad as some make it out to be. It’s a pretty solid Bond adventure.
005) Daniel Craig’s at his best as Bond in QOS. I’d say the same about SF but I’m not sure if that’s a controversial opinion.
006) Peter Hunt should’ve made more Bond films going into the 70’s. I certainly think his output would’ve been much better than Guy Hamilton’s.
007) Goldeneye is the most popular/influential film of the Barbara Broccoli/Michael Wilson produced films. The name alone is practically a brand in and of itself.
008) Being more “grounded” and “realistic” doesn’t automatically mean “better.”
009) I think Craig perhaps may have stuck around too long as Bond.
0010) I think both Dalton and Brosnan deserved at least one more film. Perhaps if Dalton came aboard for AVTAK and Brosnan could’ve have one more film squeezed in for 2004/2005. As I said; the two most consistent Bonds.
0011) Nightfire >>>>> Goldeneye 64.
0012) From Russia With Love (the game) >>>>> Everything or Nothing.
0013) The only “definitive” Bond is the literary character.
1. Where does the film stray from the novel? There's the added DB5 chase at Auric Enterprises, Tilly dies earlier, and instead of Bond being a secretary he's a prisoner. And also Pussy alerts Felix instead of Bond. And also how does the novel best the film in non-plot things? I don't really have an opinion either way but curious about the reasoning
2. I have to disagree. Dalton through his two films shows it all. He's charming with Felix and Della, but switches his professionalism on a soon as he has to go after Sanchez. There's the same "kind-of" plan that's on flimsy ground when tries to infiltrate Sanchez's organisation. The same reliance on a woman (like Solitaire or Tiffany) to break in. And in TLD he shows a protective and caring side that also feels lifted from the page. There's him challenging with doing his job and actually killing others. Obviously, there are going to be differences, but Dalton gets quite close.
3. Moore in Octopussy is a more versatile performance I'd say. More range and more things to tackle: Vijay's death, anger with Orlov, desperation to get to the bomb, even the small bit of shock with Magda's Octopussy. In Moonraker, Bond is really only shaken by the centrifuge, and while Moore it brilliantly, there's not much else for him to act. Of course he's great as the gentleman spy though.
4. Well I would say that Brosnan's films are fading because he's getting further and further away, and his films are hardly the type of films that get a collective reappraisal years down the line. The early Moore films were probably the same as Brosnan era started.
5. Both seem a bit dull on screen, although I've seen screenshots where LTK looks lush (probably from the BluRay version or something).
6. Moore's Bond has obviously aged badly in two respects: the women in TMWTGG and the cards in LALD. Then more subtly there's the issue of race in LALD, and maybe the depiction of India in OP. That's it (I'm not counting the "a woman" stuff in MR because that seemed like an attempt at character development). With Connery there's the treatment of Quarrel, him being physical with Tania, the barn scene Pussy, Shrublands with Molly etc, along with the more "subtle" stuff like the portrayal of Gypsies, "you swim like a man" whatever.
Put crudely, there's loads of more stuff that could get Connery's Bond "cancelled" as opposed to Moore's.
7. The falling house and the drowning are the weakest part of CR for sure. Vesper's death as a suicide loses power because of that end for me. In the novel, it feels like her own reaction to how the betrayal is ruining her, while in the film it feels like a reaction to Bond finding out about the betrayal. The romance I find is quite good, with both the train and the shower scene being quite strong. But overall I can just buy that after a dangerous job to the extent that neither have ever experienced, there would be a euphoria that would draw them together.
8. Is there chemistry with Camille? I mean there's as much there as you'd get with an M, plus a little bit sexual tension. They just help each other, not much banter or back and forth. With Harris its strong in Skyfall, and even in Spectre as well. But for me, Green is the highest.
9. 100% agree. The transition from verse to chorus isn't particularly strong. Corny is certainly a word to describe it.
Excluding the videogame things (as I'm unqualified to comment), I agree with all these takes for the most part.
I think Connery in DAF does a good job with the jokes of the script but Lazenby does alright with better material so I'd rather watch that. With YOLT vs Thunderball, I dislike both so I can't really fault it either way.
In terms of grounded meaning better, I don't think that it automatically makes the film better. But I think by having to carefully consider how the film functions in reality could mean more care in the process and thus a better film.