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
Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
[/quote]
[/quote]
That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o
Rog gave us the Bond of HIS vision, and HIS strengths as a performer. At his best moments he was brilliant.
[/quote]
Indeed. If there's one thing Moore did, it was that he proved that the Bond series can live on without Connery, and for that, he has nothing but (in the words of Stromberg) "my most profound thanks".
That didn't help.
Indeed. If there's one thing Moore did, it was that he proved that the Bond series can live on without Connery, and for that, he has nothing but (in the words of Stromberg) "my most profound thanks".
[/quote]
Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.
Look, as a literary Bond, Moore failed. In fact all Bond movies fail from that perspective except Connery's first two, and arguably Dalton's two. On the 'anti-chuckle-metre' we can include Craig's. On the 'nothing-unrealistic-O-metre' all Bond movies and books fail.
You need to stop trying to prove s**t and just let it come come down to your own personal preferences. THOSE are valid. Try talking more about what you like in the Bond series a bit more than what you don't- it's more fun for all that way. Or use constructive, rather than DEstructive, criticism.
K?
Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.[/quote]
I don't think you grasped my point. I'm disputing the quality of the Moore films, what I'm saying is that, and this cannot be denied, the Moore films were a success and the general public took to him, and he went on to be the longest serving Bond actor (whether you think that is a good thing or otherwise, I don't particularly care.)
Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.[/quote]
"There's quite a few things from the Fleming novels that seem to come straight out of the Moore era. When I first read MR, I heard many here say it was maybe the most realistic/down to earth Fleming novel (atleast compared to the movie adaption). Yet this army of bald Drax' men with Hitler moustaches... seems more Moore than Craig, IMO."
To me MR (the novel) is Flemings homage to John Buchans books complete with all this "after all we are British gentlemen" attitude. You know the way spy novels were written before the likes of Eric Ambler showed us how to do it without being unintentional funny.
I don't think you grasped my point. I'm disputing the quality of the Moore films, what I'm saying is that, and this cannot be denied, the Moore films were a success and the general public took to him, and he went on to be the longest serving Bond actor (whether you think that is a good thing or otherwise, I don't particularly care.)[/quote]
All of which are absolutely undeniable. Not gonna dispute facts, nope.
However, to say which Bond films are the best Bond films is a lot more subjective. Given the variety of the style in the 6 tenures, and even within tenure, everyone is entitled to say which Bond film they think is best. Heck, I'm sure if we look hard enough we'll find people who prefer DAD above the other 22 films? Are they wrong? No, since no Bond film will ever satisfy everyone. Some may be liked by a larger group of people, but each film will have it's fans and detractors. That's the beauty of the Bond franchise.
There are lousy pictures that I have a fondness for. THere's a diabolical picture called Monster Squad that I enjoy despite it's awful, horrid lapses in quality, but I'm not gonna sit here and state that Monster Squad is as good as Chinatown, as another example of a quality film, and for me it's easy to state that there are reasonable differences in quality among the 20-odd Bond films.
My opinion, I understand that.
Yep.
If you rank the 007 outings only by how well made they are, that's sad, because your ranking will never change, since the films are what they are and will never change. You'll never watch a 'bad' Bond (in your opinion) and think 'wow, this film is much more entertaining than I remember' because for you all that matters is the cinematic craft, not the fun factor ( which is essential in terms of Bond).
But I do understand what you're saying about seeing a picture with one's heart. Thereby the Monster Squad analogy. It is what it is, but I had fun with it.
Now that is an apt way to put it, @chrisisall! a Bond B-movie. Not that I like those a lot. But that certainly fits the description. Along with @BeatlesSansEarmuffs saying that TMWTGG is schizophrenic. Some parts are so bad and some are quite good. A mixed B movie bag of a Bond film. :)
But I suppose as one grows older, you begin to appreciate the craft of film much more. OHMSS is (in my opinion) the best James Bond film in terms of cinematic craft (but it is also the one I enjoy most), but as you grow older, I suppose you begin to notice things in a film (such as the jump cuts in OHMSS, etc.) that you perhaps did not notice when you were your younger self.
Agreed on OHMSS. For example, the assault on Pitz-Gloria does have a shot where Bond is in the right foreground beginning his (pretty cool) slide as he fires the Browning machine gun, but the memorable reverse shot where he slides/fires does not actually happen until later in the sequence!
As much as I like Connery as Bond, objectively-speaking OHMSS is at the very least better than two of the Connery films, YOLT and DAF, though I have a great deal of loyalty to YOLT, OHMSS is simply such a well-directed and well-shot film, very nearly a Bond film that could have happened in reality, which is a remarkable achievement considering the spectacle that is the Bond Universe.
I must agree with that. The flight to Piz Gloria, both the first time with Bunt and later with Draco, are some of the best examples of cinematography in the series.
Later, there is also a fantastic match-dissolve where Tracy being dragged away in the snow is perfectly reflected in the window at MI6, with Bond behind the window itself.
Absolutely inspired.