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
It would have been up there with NSNA and CR67.
You really think so? I don't remember there being that kind of uproar at the time. Tarantino may have made a few naff films but he's also made some great ones. He's definitely a cut above Tamahori. I'd be quite interested to have seen what it would have been like.
Plus, this was Tarantino's glory days. He'd just come of Kill Bill and had never really made a bad film then. The only film I didn't like directed by him was Death Proof (the weaker part of Grind House, I preferred Rogruigez's zombie film).
Also, given the backlash DAD experienced I'd have thought there would have been a deliberate attempt by all involved to tone down the excess for the next film.
I wouldn't trade the CR we have for anything however :D
It's true to say that the US was in love with Brosnan and didn't matter what kind of dreck was served up, the masses loved it - good or bad, but mostly bad for us old school (English) fans. If we were to use those charts as some sort of guide then we would have to say that it's a bit of a grey area, both serious and comical Bonds score very highly, depending on when and who was starring in them. Though actonsteve has a valid point, TB, FRWL and CR with their more serious Fleming tones nudge past the more goofy efforts as clear winners.
Personally I'm glad Bond has gone darker and in a sense returned to his roots. Though I do miss the witty one-liners from the Connery days, I have no desire to return to the jocular Roger Moore Bonds or the vainglorious Brosnan era. The latter being the worse imho.
The thing is the US is (kind of) important when it comes to the world of film - particularly Bond. Its one of the biggest nations in the world, hence a lot of the BO will come from there. It helps if a Bond film is a hit in the States. As far as I know GF, TB and CR were. The books were big in the states too (everyone knows about JFK's fondness of FRWL).
The films GF and TB, despite their more Fleming-tones, mark the point when gagetry started to become the focus. True they weren't as excessive as they would become in later films but still - they created the building blocks. They were, incidently, extremely popular. Its no coincidence the series started to become more OTT afterwards.
Bond films make about 2/3 of their box office overseas, and 1/3 in the US.
What elevates Bond above typical action films is that it is not pitched solely at teenagers. He is an adult, and the sex and sadism, often in amazing locations, works.
When the films strain too hard for the younger audience, we get Jaws and double-taking pigeons in MR, the Internet-anointed Denise Richards in TWINE, and the surfing in DAD.
Bond should never surf, snowboard, or skateboard--all recipes for disaster.
I agree. We only have to look at the recent Tintin movie, a huge international success but considered a flop as it did poor box office in the US market. But this might begin to change as some of the more recent blockbusters are getting international releases ahead of the US dates, if only by a few days or maybe a week.
Sorry, echo, I know there are a lot of old school American fans that love the 60's Bonds. No offence, my thread was aimed at the present US teen market that now makes up the majority of BO figures and not the more sophisticated adult ones that enjoy quality over brainless entertainment.
I totally agree, Tarantino would have made a interesting bond film, I hope hes given the chance to direct one in the future.
It will take me a while to read all the replies.
No fan of Moore for sure but the credentials were there every so often in that he looked and acted feasibly as a Fleming intention, but these moments were so very few and far between, Brosnan, also no fan of him, but he had more of those moments and did better with it, so I went intially with him, but these two, along with Lazenby and Hitherto Daniel Craig, will always be in Connery or Daltons shadow when it comes to the real James Bond character or what Fleming intended
For me though, Brosnan was the more Flemingesque Bond. He was a bit too confident for me in areas, but scenes like the one in TND where he puts the silencer on his PPK while downing a bottle of vodka scream Fleming to me. It's a shame they didn't utilise Brosnan more in these areas because this was where he truly stood out from the rest, but there you go. I'm fairly sure he wanted it too.
Moore, while I love the guy and some of his films are good, kind of lost that Fleming feel after TSWLM. For me, anyway. That's probably why his first three are my favourites. Only FYEO came close to this atmosphere after that.
Agreed. Unfortunately the stupidity of the Goodnight character (far cry from the novel) and the midget antics ruin one of Moore's best efforts as the character. Still, this movie has always had a soft spot in my heart and I enjoy it a lot despite the obvious flaws.
Not to get off topic but I feel this sums up Roger Moore's Bond tenure. We enjoy the films, they have very entertaining elements, and there is some Fleming stuff roaming around in there, but the flaws of OTT parts lower its reputation.
I don't think the Brosnan era has much in relation to the books but i guess most of the material was used up by that point.
Aside from the scene with Andrea, I don't see any Fleming in Moore's performance. I see the comic excesses of later Moore films (grabbing the sumo's butt cheeks, "I sure am, boy!", etc.).
Just to say, i was thinking back just then and maybe Moore is at his most Fleming esque in Octopussy, for all the overall stupid nonsense that went on back in '83, there was clear moments when Moore was almost Connery in his early years and Fleming would of been proud, but these moments were very few and far between, but when the time arised, he certainly almost did fit, and act the part, hands up, he was quite impressive, it's just that for all the few decent and great bits, and Fleming nods even, there's always a sitting tiger, a tarzan yell, a nonsense battle through Indian streets, a crocodile disguise etc, that gets in the way and almost renders whatever good work Moore does in the film as void or redundant, but the moments were there
I would have to say Brosnan. Moore is too light hearted and funny. Fleming's Bond was never funny. He had no sense of humor whatsoever. He was a brooding, moody MI6 assasin.
About Fleming saying Bond was not a likable man, then hands down to Brosnan. I did not find him appealing at all.
Thanks. :D