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
I don't actually have an issue with this sequence itself. I have an issue with the common misinterpretation that this is just "bad writing". First, a little background. For those of you unfamiliar with LTK or this scene, Bond escapes from M after resigning to pursue his vendetta, and is shot at by other agents. As they shoot at him, M urges them to stop because there are "too many people" around. Bond, at the time this is said, is running through some trees, that surround the complex, devoid of civilization or people. Most people who watch the film misinterpret this as a mistake in the script.
BUT. Earlier in this scene, we see that it takes place at Hemingway House. In one of the shots, filmed over the balcony M is standing on as Bond walks up to the house, we can see that it is right next to a main street in Florida, with plenty of witnesses. M telling his agents not to shoot because of "too many people" isn't anything to do with the risk of hitting anyone, it's because too many people can hear the shots and, if they're standing on the right spot in the street, can even see the shooting. It's actually a fantastic line and reveals a lot about Brown's M; he's nothing against having Bond killed for the preservation of Her Majesty's government, but rather he's concerned about political repercussions that come with killing his top agent, with possibly hundreds of people around to hear and see it, on foreign ground. It's just not handled well in this way filmmaking-wise as we never see any reaction shots of the people on the street who absolutely would have heard the gunshots.
9: Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye
Oh, GoldenEye. How perfect a movie you almost are. As I've made quite clear already in the eight hours I've so far been a member on the boards for, I loathe Brosnan as Bond. I think the man is a horrible actor and there are plenty of examples before and after Bond that showcase this ("Maybe you shouldn't be LIVING HEEEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEE!"). I think he's the worst Bond, a wannabe who spent his tenure copying Moore and Connery, yet failing to find solid ground in his inconsistent portrayal.
But Brosnan as a whole is not what this point is about. It's about Brosnan in GoldenEye. You know, I've often heard people who defend Brosnan say that his portrayal suffered because he had some of the worst scripts, directors, material, actors surrounding him, and films in the entire series. And that is absolutely true. He had TND and DAD for bad scripts, Tamahori and Apted for bad directors (I do think Spottiswoode also made a terrible Bond film, but he is a good director and did, admittedly, know how to capture the Bond "feel"), pretty much everything about DAD for bad material, Halle Berry, Toby Stephens, Denise Richards, and that dude who played Bullion for actors, and TND, TWINE, and DAD which are all three of the worst films in the series (although TWINE isn't quite as horrible as the other two.
However, Brosnan was also stuck with possibly the BEST script, possibly the BEST director, possibly the BEST group of co-stars and actors, and some of the BEST material ever put in a Bond film with GoldenEye. And what does he do? He manages to be the only bad thing in a fantastic Bond film. Brosnan gave, quite possibly, his worst performance as Bond in GoldenEye (although that's not saying much as there's little to be said in the first place about his other three turns as Bond). He had no idea what he was doing, and every single mannerism, every single syllable he spoke just oozed the same shtick as he had on Remmington Steele, with thinly veiled and terribly executed attempts to copy 50% of Connery's portrayal and the other 50% of Moore's. I don't think I've ever seen a movie carry its' lead actor on its' shoulders more than GoldenEye does with Brosnan. It really takes multiple watchings of GoldenEye to see this, as the fantastic performances of Bean, Dench, Scorupco, Janssen, and most of all, the underrated but amazing Alan Cumming really elevate Brosnan's performance on a first viewing. It really took a lot of times watching GoldenEye for it to slowly drop in my rankings based solely on Brosnan alone, because his lack of ability as an actor managed to slowly permeate even this masterpiece of a film.
GoldenEye should be my #1 Bond film. It should be EVERYBODY'S #1 Bond film. It's perfect, literally. Every single frame of this movie is perfect... except for the parts that have Brosnan in them. The guy playing the main goddamn character in the freaking film is the only let down. And so as it stands, GoldenEye is only #6 or #7 on my list. Brosnan brings it down so much, and this is one of the biggest shames of the entire series, along with my next point...
8: Timothy Dalton not getting more films not being Bond in GoldenEye
So, this is the first of my points that tie into one another. I'll have another group of about three or four - spoiler alert, they're related to Lazenby and the disaster that is DAF - that correlate later on in my list.
Timothy Dalton is my favourite James Bond. Timothy Dalton is also the best actor who has played James Bond, being classically trained and willing to actually take the time to undergo proper preparation for the role, something I don't think most of the Bond actors have actually done save for Craig and maybe Lazenby on account of how badly he wanted the role. And regardless of how much preparation the other actors put in, Dalton absolutely put much more time and effort into his portrayal than the other five combined.
And guess what else? TIMOTHY DALTON IS JAMES BOND. He's the man. He's 007. He's the master of the Saville Row suit, the vodka martini, the baccarat shoe, the Walther PPK, the Aston Martin, he epitomizes the transformation from book to screen of Ian Fleming's secret agent, giving the closest portrayal of Bond to the novels, unmatched, unparalleled by any other actor in cinematic history.
Timothy Dalton was an absolute blessing for this film series, taking over from a campy comedian who was in the role for far too long and turned James Bond, the character, into James Bond, the caricature. He delivered the aforementioned gritty and fantastic portrayal needed to finally see Fleming's vision realized on screen, and gave us not only what could truly be the greatest Bond film of them all with The Living Daylights, but even gave us a second Bond film which is also at LEAST in the top five with Licence To Kill, the most un-Bondlike film ever when compared to its' cinematic predecessors and successors; and yet one of the most Bondlike films ever when compared to the novels, and a fantastic film regardless of which way you look at it. He was fantastic in these two films, and surely he would go on to do at least a couple more? No? But I mean, he would surely at least do ONE more, right? Right?
WRONG. We all know how this story ends. Licence To Kill doesn't do that great at the box office, sure, but that didn't end Dalton's tenure as Bond. He was still Bond for quite some time after. It was a lawsuit, lasting 6 years, that killed his Bond after two films. Fed up with the wait, Dalton quit in 1994, feeling that it was just his time, he'd been Bond for seven years already, and even though he'd spent five of said years with no film, he had still been Bond for too long in his eyes, not wanting to be the second Roger Moore. Always an actor who believed in the integrity of his projects and his characters before his own success, Dalton quits with his head held high.
And oh, what a disappointment this was! (I've been imagining all of what I type being read aloud by @calvindyson and it's been more than entertaining, even though for the most part he and I couldn't have more opposing views of the Bond films. He's still absolutely my favourite Bond fan and he's a huge part of why I've decided to immerse myself in the fandom, and not just in the movies themselves)
I mean, Dalton's my favourite Bond ever, OF COURSE (in retrospect as I wasn't alive at the time) I wanted him to have more films! Without the lawsuit, he could've done two more before GoldenEye, AND THEN DONE GOLDENEYE. That would be fantastic!
GoldenEye is a Dalton Bond film without Dalton. The script just screams Dalton with some last-minute modifications to accomodate Brosnan's Moore-like demeanour. If I was watching GoldenEye, having only before seen The Living Daylights and having no idea of the behind the scenes story of the Bond films, having never seen any sort of box art or promotional thing or having had any knowledge that Brosnan was now Bond, I would see that opening dam sequence and think I was still watching Dalton. The goddamn hairstyle - though admittedly a coincidence and just something Brosnan carried over from Remmington Steele - is exactly the same! The run, the black covert ops suit, all of it looks remarkably similar, even identical to the opening of TLD!
And Dalton would've been fantastic in this. Beyond fantastic, this would probably have been his best performance in any film, Bond or non-Bond, ever! And that's speaking for an actor who's had a marvelous career and taken on many roles that he's done a perfect job with! So many of Bond's lines in this film are written in such a way that I just hear Dalton saying them as I read them. I've imagined GoldenEye in its' entirety, every shot being exactly the same, every second and frame identical to the released version, with Dalton everywhere that Brosnan is in his place. And it is perfection in every sense of the word.
If Dalton had done GoldenEye, it would not only be my #1 Bond film. It would be, without a sliver of doubt, the indisputible best Bond film ever in my books. Instead we're stuck with Brosnan and a film that is much lower on my list. For me, this is tied with no Lazenby in DAF - we'll get to that later - as the biggest let down in the entire Bond film series.
7: The director changing between every single Bond film from GoldenEye up to and including Skyfall
From Dr. No to Licence To Kill, a period of 16 Bond films, we had a whopping total of FIVE directors, with the directorial torch being passed between them only seven times as many of these directors - in fact, all of them, with the exception of Peter Hunt - directed consecutive Bond films, creating a consistent style. Of course this had the negative impact of a bad Bond film usually being followed with at least one more bad Bond film (my biggest argument to support this is the chain of DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG, all of which are in the bottom half of my ranking, and all of which were directed by Guy Hamilton). But for the most part, this meant on the other hand that we also tended to have a series of good Bond films follow each great one. John Glen, with his five-film streak, only made one Bond film that isn't in the top half of my list (AVTAK). He also made two that are in my top five (TLD and LTK) and directed the entire tenure of who I consider to be the best Bond ever. Funnily enough, there was only one period of time where we had the director changing with each film - GF to OHMSS - which is also what I consider to be the most inconsistent period of Bond's pre-90s cinematic history.
This changed with GoldenEye. We had Martin Campbell take over from Glen, and he did a fantastic job with GoldenEye. In fact, taking GoldenEye and Casino Royale together, I've often argued that Campbell may possibly be the best Bond director ever - though Sam Mendes probably has taken that spot - based on filmmaking ability. So why the hell didn't Campbell return?
Well, his own choice, admittedly. And that's fine, but why not at least *attempt* to find a director of Campbell's caliber who was willing to do more than one until Campbell was ready to return one day? Why the hell settle for Spottiswoode, then Apted, then Tamahori, a series of directors that got progressively worse? Seriously, people have often argued that Brosnan's series of films get progressively worse, from good to horrible, and I don't consider it a coincidence that we get one of the best directors of the series doing one of the best Bonds, then a mediocre director doing a terrible Bond, a bad director doing a bad Bond, and then the worst director of the entire series doing the worst film in the entire series.
Then Craig's era comes, we get Campbell returning and, once again, making one of the best Bonds ever. Forster takes over and the film we get is horrible, and then Mendes comes and gives us the new quintessential Bond. And now we're in talks about Bond 24, Mendes isn't returning, and now I'm worried that the next Bond film will sincerely suck. We're gonna get the most inconsistent years for the films if the next Bond film is a bad one; there's never been this much of a roller coaster ride before with how the films rank in my list. Even from GF to OHMSS, which I previously said was inconsistent, the rankings for those films go like this on my list:
10 - 16 - 13 - 2
Which is still relatively consistent except for the fact that it's basically a bunch of good - mediocre ones and then one of the best. Whereas the rankings for the films from GE to Skyfall go like this:
8 - 18 - 15 - 23 - 4 - 21 - 3
In those seven films, we have a great one, a bad one, a mediocre one, the worst one in the entire series, one of the best, another one of the worst, and then another one of the absolute best.
I just wish this series would regain some goddamn consistency as it goes on in future. If a director like Campbell or Mendes does the job they've managed to do, then Broccoli and Wilson should be working their asses off to meet any and all demands to get them back for at least the next one or two! Again, take Glen's tenure as an example: Glen did five films, his first being fantastic, his second being a fun if not technically great Bond adventure, stumbling on his third, regaining his footing with his fourth film being THE BEST IN THE ENTIRE FREAKING SERIES, and his fifth being almost as good as the fourth!
Keep the same director for at least two in a row. That's all I want. It worked pretty fucking well when the same director did five in a row.
6: Filming the books the Blofeld Trilogy out of order
This will tie into two later points.
For those of you who have not read the novels, the three most often-acclaimed of the series - along, of course, with Casino Royale - are the Blofeld Trilogy. In order, these are Thunderball, OHMSS, and You Only Live Twice. Thunderball introduces Blofeld, OHMSS is where... well, you've seen the movie, right?, and YOLT is where Bond hunts down and kills Blofeld, avenging Tracy. It's fantastic reading and I actually do regret spoiling it here to make my point. Anyway.
It's always pissed me off that You Only Live Twice was made before On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If I can say one thing about Thunderball, it's that it's a faithful adaptation of the novel, if not a great Bond film. I don't really care that EVERY single Fleming novel wasn't filmed in the exact order of their release, since the only Fleming novels that really directly followed eachother were the Blofeld Trilogy and then TMWTGG. But for god's sake, their choice to film YOLT before OHMSS, following Thunderball, was borderline mentally retarded!
They turned the book for YOLT, a fantastic closer to the Blofeld Trilogy, into a jumbled mess. I enjoy the film, but at the same time, just as I admit with much of Moore's films, just because I rank it highly on my list doesn't save it from the fact that it's a terrible. Bloody. Film. The plot is all over the place, Bond faking his own death at the beginning of the film vs. the amnesia plot twist and Bond's death being faked by others at the end of the novel completely ruins everything about that part of the book, and what should've been Bond's final confrontation with Blofeld in the Garden of Death instead turns out to be their first meeting in a fucking rocketship volcano. Some good setpieces, but this film would've been SO good if it was a direct lift of the novel. YOLT is probably my third- or fourth-favourite Bond novel, so to see it destroyed with this film is actually a bit upsetting.
Ultimately, because of their decision after YOLT to make OHMSS a direct adaptation, we also get the uncomfortable scene in OHMSS where Bond uses a safecracker about fifteen - twenty times the size of the handheld one he uses in YOLT. That's always bugged me. Always.
And then filming the books out of order also brings us to how DAF basically filled YOLT's shoes, and then failed miserably at actually concluding the Blofeld story... but, we'll get to Diamonds Are Forever later.
5: No Lazenby in Diamonds Are Forever
"Later" as in right now.
I don't know what to say about Diamonds Are Forever that hasn't already been said. It sucks. Even watching it without OHMSS, it's impossible for me to both look past the movie's individual flaws - of which there are many - and to separate it from Tracy's death. It's actually horrifyingly bad, and I never watch it immediately after OHMSS; I always take, at minimum, a 24-hour break between the two films in fear that DAF has the capability to actually make OHMSS suck for me.
So let's forget most of what makes DAF bad, because we all know what those things are. (Though I will have to bring up some of the ones related to OHMSS in order to talk about this point) Instead, I want to talk about the man who portrays James Bond in this film... I mean, the man who was SUPPOSED to portray James Bond in this film.
George Lazenby is an amazing and underrated Bond, and I'm sincerely pissed off that he only got one film in the series. The silver lining is that this one film often battles TLD for being the absolute best Bond film of them all. I honestly - and this is travesty, even on these forums - would take Lazenby as Bond over Connery's best Bond performance any day. Especially considering the fact that he would be even better with even just one more Bond film under his belt.
George, you're an idiot for not taking your seven films. You would've defined the goddamn character, you moron! What the hell were you thinking?
Instead, we get Connery, phoning in Bond and giving his absolute worst performance as both the character of Bond, and possibly as any character ever portrayed by him.
But enough about that. My point is, I want Lazenby in this film! Obviously it's never happening now, but dammit, I want him in there anyway! I'm quite convinced that DAF was made as bad as it is because the filmmakers had Connery back and wanted to distance themselves from OHMSS as much as possible. By turning a gritty tale of revenge into... a shite campfest. Which is pathetic.
Lazenby would've done this film justice. I would be absolutely fine with the Death Garden fight between Bond and Blofeld from the YOLT novel being put in the DAF film. It still wouldn't fix how YOLT's film butchered the novel much more than any other film did to its' respective novel, but it would at least make up for it. Because I can see it being made in much the same fashion as the YOLT novel, except with a bigger payoff because Bond would be returning to Japan in the film, meaning we get a second movie for the ever excellent Tiger Tanaka.
Anyway, I don't know. It's spilt milk I guess but it still bothers me, and it'll forever be the saddest thing about the whole Bond film series for me.
Anyway, onto worse things...
4: Lee Tamahori
I'm not even going to get into this. It's not because I've gotten lazy after two days of writing, it's because everything that's needed to be said about this shit excuse for a director has already been said.
3: Stupid sequences/characters/set pieces/etc. being approved for the movie despite the fact that they would obviously be panned by critics and fans alike
Okay, maybe I am getting a bit tired/lazy of writing this thing, and maybe I think it's just too bloody long (seriously, is this now the longest post on the entire board?) because this is a short point as well. I'm just going to outline all of the idiotic things that I think belong in no film, not even a Bond film, and yet were included anyway.
Starting off with one which actually isn't that bad, but still bothers me mainly because it tarnishes Connery's best film:
- The use of the Bond theme while Bond is checking bugs in his hotel room in FRWL; now the Bond theme can be used to accompany any mundane life event (I sort of ripped this off from @calvindyson - I'm mentioning him quite a bit in this)
Another one that isn't that bad, but is still a nuisance mainly because it's also from the same film:
- Kronsteen in FRWL: "I have a fantastic plan... My plan has failed... I am dead"
And now, onto the bad things. I won't identify the film for most of these as many are extremely well-known... and most are from Moore/Brosnan films... oh and some are behind-the-scenes things as well.
- The "Bondola" and all associated garbage such as the double-take pigeon
- California Girls
- Hypnosis on the girls (OHMSS)
- Bibi
- Lupe falling in love with Bond
- The underwater scenes in Thunderball
- "Let's go with a different Blofeld again this time." "How about Charles Gray?" "LET'S DO IT! IT'LL BE WONDERFUL!"
- Tiffany Case and pretty much every single American character in DAF
- Most of the actors chosen to play Felix
- Bond in space
- The firetruck chase
- A delicatessen. In stainless steel.
- "Always loyal to the mission, never his friends." one movie after LTK; in fact, GoldenEye's basic ignorance of LTK the way DAF ignored OHMSS
- The invisible car
- Jinx
- Halle Berry
- Halle Berry trying to be Ursula Andress
- Halle Berry trying to be the American, female version of Bond
- The idiot who thought Halle Berry would make a good Bond girl
- The RoboCop/Terminator/Emperor Palpatine supersuit (I'm really ripping into DAD here)
- CGI. SURFING. WITH A PARACHUTE. ON ICEBERGS. TO ESCAPE FROM FALLING INTO THE OCEAN. BECAUSE A SUPER SPACE LASER IS DESTROYING EVERYTHING AROUND YOU. AND STILL MANAGING TO ESCAPE.
I could go on for days. All of these things got put into the film, and all of these are played as if the filmmakers seriously thought that they were actually doing good things with these elements of the films. Not all of them are completely stupid, but they're basically my list of the specific things that have bothered me the most about the films. In essence, I guess my real reply to this thread lies within this one point alone.
2: Daniel Craig receiving credit AND praise for everything Dalton did first and is lambasted for
I love Daniel Craig. I think he's one of the best Bonds ever (second, in fact, only to Dalton for me). Casino Royale is a cinematic masterpiece, and as far as it goes in terms of just being a quality piece of cinema, is probably the best Bond film ever (to that end, it's 4th on my list of all the Bond films). Skyfall is the new Goldfinger and will be the new archetype for Bond films for the next 50 years.
Craig is a very brutal Bond, very dark and uncompromisingly lethal, a killing machine who really has his psyche explored in his films. He's the saving grace for this series after the trainwreck that was Brosnan. He's almost on par with Dalton for being the closest to Fleming's vision of James Bond.
However, as much as I love Daniel Craig, I think the critics (and a lot of fans, too) are extremely fucking ignorant. Timothy Dalton did everything Craig did a good 20 years before him, and was criticized, even panned, for doing so. Fair enough, people weren't ready for that kind of Bond back then, but are now. I can accept that, I guess.
I can't accept the credit Daniel recieves every single day from a critic or fan, though. "Daniel Craig has created a rough, cold, borderline psychotic Bond in the vein of Fleming's character, which hasn't been done before" is something I read, paraphrased of course, EVERY. SINGLE. FREAKING. DAY.
I don't want to dwell on this too long cause I'll just be repeating myself. But watch Licence To Kill. Everything about Craig's Bond is contained in that film, and it came out 17 years before Casino Royale. That's all I have to say.
And we come to our final point, which I've sort of basically already elaborated on...
1: George Lazenby not getting any more films as Bond
I don't know who to blame for this, and I won't get into the politics of it. I don't care about the "why" in this case; I care about the "what". George Lazenby should've been Bond from OHMSS to FYEO, and then Dalton should've taken over from there. I enjoy Roger Moore, I really do - though he's still second from the bottom on my list - but the man was still godawful in the role (which is basically WHY I enjoy him so much, because he knew he was bad and had fun with it) and I would not be losing any sleep if he'd never gotten to be Bond.
We've gone over DAF already, and it's well known amongst fans why George should've been James Bond in that film. So I'll skip talking about Diamonds Are Forever, and talk exclusively about George as Bond in general.
George is my third-favourite Bond, behind Daniel and Tim, just simply based on the fact that I consider them to, admittedly, be better actors, and more accurate to Fleming's Bond. However, as a cinematic Bond, I'd probably argue that George is the most sophisticated, suave, and smooth Bond of them all. He's got the looks, the voice, and the personality to back this up. Plus he was great with all the fight scenes.
And it all comes across as genuine to me, as well. Despite the opinion of many that Lazenby was "wooden" or "insincere" (really? This is seriously something people actually say, and I think it's ridiculous) in his one-and-done tenure as Bond, I think he was absolutely fantastic. Especially for a MODEL with no former acting experience, he really pulled it off for me. And I don't see anybody arguing with that killer ending, either!
Lazenby should've at least been given one more film. I understand OHMSS didn't do as well as expected at the box office, but for God's sake, they had somebody replacing the man who, at the time, was the cinematic equivalent of God! How in the world did they think audiences would go for that the first time around? If they took a risk with DAF, it would've done extremely well at the box office, guaranteed. Lazenby would've been on top form with that film, and then if he continued after that, I have no doubt in my mind that George Lazenby would be the first name to come to peoples' minds when asked, "Who IS James Bond?"
Imagine if he continued until FYEO, too. That would give him bookends for the Tracy storyline (although, if DAF was done properly, the PTS for FYEO would never exist) and leave his Bond with a hell of a legacy at that point. In turn, Dalton had been considered again at that point in time, and since the films would likely have been much less campier, Dalton would likely have signed on. And then he would've been much better received as well, and I could then see Dalton going on AT LEAST until TND, maybe even TWINE or (my ultimate Bond fantasy) DAD. He had the looks to pull it off at that age. Hell, he still has the looks when he has the right hairstyle and whatnot to be a convincing Bond for me. I mean that sincerely.
The Bond series would be perfect if it went Connery < Lazenby < Dalton < Craig. A lot of the "bad" Bond films wouldn't be so bad because they'd be written for Lazenby and Dalton instead of for Moore and Brosnan, and would've turned out a hell of a lot better. My opinion, anyway.
I'll finish off this point (and this inexcusably long post) by saying this: to George Lazenby, you were the best potential thing to happen to this film franchise. You could've been the best, but instead you leave behind an extremely poor legacy of which you deserve much better. And that will forever be the greatest tragedy of James Bond in cinema.
Don't forget the evil mastermind in drag ;)
It was a pleasure to read this. Much respect @StirredNotShaken.
Haha, obliged, good sir. Hopefully my post won't get quoted by too many people, though. It's just a wee bit on the long side lol
People actually complain about that?
Wow, that was harsh. I can understand why you don't like Brosnan as Bond (he's far from my favorite as well) but I think you've gone overboard by saying that he's a horrible actor. I can't agree with that at all.
I believe that he got a little better with each movie so technically I would agree that it's his worst performance in the role. He certainly didn't ruin the movie for me though. I also have to disagree that every other aspect of the movie is perfect except for him. Honestly, I don't think that you really feel that way. Surely you can find some criticism of the film however minor it may be?
Sure. It's one of the many interesting "what if" questions that you could ask over the entire run of the series. Also you love Dalton as much as you hate Brosnan. Got it.
I would mostly agree with this. I would also say that if they had chosen directors who were more suited for the task then it might not be that big of an issue.
Regrettably, there are too many Bond movies that didn't take advantage of their excellent source material. You won't get an argument from me there.
Agreed. I'm not quite as sold on him as you are though.
This goes without saying.
Many of those things bother me as well. I don't think everything that you listed was universally panned at the time though. The OP stated that this thread is for the things that you truly despise and not just the moments that irritate you. If you absolutely hate the awkwardly placed Bond theme being played while Connery is checking his room in FRWL then that's your business but there are worse things that I can think of. Like reading your entire post for instance. Zing! Just kidding. If I truly hated it then I wouldn't have bothered to reply.
Hmmm... Yes and no. I agree that Craig (and his films) are certainly influenced by Dalton in some ways but I also think that he has elements to his Bond that are unique. Daniel Craig is a great actor in his own right and it is a disservice to him to say that everything he has accomplished is all owed to Dalton.
By that logic you could say that Dalton owes everything to Connery (in his first two films) and Lazenby who gave us the earliest Fleming inspired performances. Tim took it to the next logical step and portrayed a more realistic and definitive version of the character.
I think that in some ways Craig portrays aspects of Fleming better than Dalton does. He also has a certain likeability factor that has allowed him to connect with the general public far more than Dalton did.
I can understand your frustration with Tim not getting the credit he deserved but Dan is not a Dalton clone.
You obviously like George a lot and I'm fine with that. I like him too. I actually like all of the actors. However, I just can't get behind this idea that the greatest tragedy of the entire franchise is Lazenby not getting more films. That's high praise for a man that was quite inconsistent in his acting abilities. I see the potential he had and the flashes of brilliance that he displayed here and there but he really was the worst actor of the bunch. It would be fascinating to be able to see how he would have developed over time. Ultimately though, the series survived just fine without him.
These are all your opinions of course and I am in no way trying to prove you wrong by saying that my opinions are better. We all have our preferred version of the Bond timeline. Yours obviously includes a lot more Lazenby than mine does.
You brought up some interesting points. I hope that you enjoyed mine as well.
Anyway lets get on with dissecting your opus:
I've never heard anyone class this as a mistake of the script. I think its pretty clear that M is stating 'too many people' in terms of witnesses to gunning a man down in broad daylight (although it begs the question what is then the point of having that guy stationed in the tower if hes not going to be allowed to shoot at anyone? Is he there just to persuade Bond to come quietly?). The flaw with the line, if there is any, is that are they saying M would just execute Bond there and then if there wasnt anybody about? Would Flemings M really do this? He would happily sacrifice Bonds life to protect the country but would he kill his best agent just for being a bit out of line?
I know hes a bastard (in YOLT and TMWTGG hes happy to bin Bond when hes no use to the service) but this seems like crossing a line. Bond has disobeyed an order at most. Thats a court martial or some such but not an execution without trial. M simply would not contravene the law in this way IMO.
Well youre pretty harsh on Brozza but the more I read the more I started to think your points are difficult to argue with.
Its pretty blatant that Broz tries to be an all things to all men Bond combining Rog and Sean in equal measure but at the time it was just what was required. Whether he was advised to do this by EON or Campbell or whether this was his own 'interpretation' is fairly moot - he was what he was.
You are spot on saying hes a pretty poor actor though (although is he any worse than Rog?) - take Bond out of his CV and it would be on a par with a Michael Biehn or a Lance Henrikksen: ie fairly solid TV and straight to video actor but nothing more. However I think we do have to give him some credit for keeping the series going for as for as much as you love Dalton he just wasnt putting bums on seats, Stateside in particular.
Also cant agree with you that GE is perfect by any means (with Dalton it would have been significantly better yes - almost certainly top 5) but thats a separate debate.
Well I covered that a bit above.
I would just add that Dalton in the first half of TLD is probably tied with Sean in DN and Laz from the moment he puts the skis on onwards as being the closest we have ever had to Flemings character on the screen. I find Dalts rather too theatrical in LTK to be honest so dont enjoy his performance as much. The overall American feel (locations, cast, Die Hard/Lethal Weapon ripoff score) brings LTK down as well for me as I greatly prefer Bond in a European setting. Dalts in GE would certainly have been something from a fans perspective but in terms of the public and keeping the series going I think they hankered for a more Rog-esque portrayal after the grimness of LTK and its very difficult to guage how a new Dalton film in 95 would have gone down but one suspects badly, or at least not as well as Brozzas GE did.
Not sure what your point is here. The only real consecutive eras we have to use as data to try and prove the hypothesis that retaining the director makes for better films are Hamilton 71-74 and Glen.
Hamiltons 3 went: poor-average-poor so the only consistency there is of mediocrity.
Glens 5 went: good, better, average/poor, very good, decent. An overall higher level of consistency but still there are peaks and troughs rather than a steady increase in quality.
So can we conclude keeping a director makes for better films? Unproven is the kindest verdict I can give. I think its more down to scripts.
You say 'I just wish this series would regain some goddamn consistency' but the series has never had consistency except for perhaps the first 3. Indeed FRWL apart if you look at every truly great entry they are bookended by distinctly poorer ones:
OHMSS sandwiched between the average YOLT and the poor DAF.
TLD sandwiched between the poor AVTAK and the decent LTK.
CR sandwiched between the poor DAD and the decent QOS.
Even FRWL you would say is partnered with only pretty decent films rather than really good ones. In fact the Craig era seems to be the closest we have had in terms of consistency with great (CR), flawed but decent (QOS) and borderline great (SF). Is there a better 3 film run than this? Only DN (decent), FRWL (great) and GF(good) and TLD (great), LTK (good), GE (pretty good) come close to this level of consistency for me.
The only rule that seems to make for a good film is casting a new Bond - OHMSS (great), LALD (average), TLD (great), GE (good), CR (great) - which is presumably down to everyone lifting their game to help the new bloke get off to a decent start.
Well I'll agree with you 100% here although my main reason for hating the way it was done (which is rather more fundamental than the portablility of a safecracker) is the fact Blofeld not only doesnt recognise the guy who buggered his plans from YOLT because he is wearing a pair of glasses FFS but then once said glasses are removed hes all pally like they know each other. 'It takes more than a few props to turn 007 into a herald' - does it Ernst? Because 5 minutes ago when he was wearing said props you were totally convinced you bald retard.
This whole thing would be appalling even without YOLT and the fact they have already met as one minute Blofeld doesnt recognise him then Bond whips off his glasses like Clark Kent and he knows exactly who he is. Its stupid in Superman that no one spots that Clark and Superman are the same guy him but at least its consistent and you can suspend disbelief. Here we are asked to believe that Blofeld knows exactly who Bond is but a pair of glasses and talking posh was enough to turn the worlds greatest master criminal blind. Utter bollocks.
Of course the other problem with this is that we cant film YOLT properly but this wouldnt be a problem if DAF wasnt such a shambles. If Bond hunts down Blofeld and kills him in DAF then we can live with the books being filmed out of order. But of course we were never allowed a proper showdown unless you consider Bond dangling Blofeld around on the end of a crane like a game from the Crystal f**king Maze a suitable send off for Bonds nemesis?
Well StirredNotShaken my shift at work is over and I've only got half way. I guess the rest will have to wait as I dont do this on my own time you know.
Still nice to have someone who posts something with a bit of meat for you to get your teeth into for a change. Keep up the good work.
I think there's another way of interpreting this. The agents should shoot Bond and M knows this. But M stops them using the "other people" as a fairly feeble excuse. This is suggested by Robert Brown's slightly faltering delivery, as though he's grasping for a reason.
Wow. I thought I wasn't a fan of Brosnan. He's not a truly great actor by any stretch but... that was pretty brutal.
Campbell was asked back both times though. And Apted was apparently asked back. You may get your wish soon though, if rumours are to be believed.
I know you said you don't care about the "why" but, just so you know, Lazenby was offered a 7 picture deal and didn't sign the contract. When DAF was announced as the next Bond film Broccoli actually sent Lazenby a cheque for his fee and Lazenby tore it up and sent it back.
Not sure he's nearly as big a missed opportunity as you think. The fact that he's never had a major role since does say something about his ability. Much as you suggest for Brosnan in GE, Lazenby was really carried by his supporting cast.
I do feel I have to stick up for Brosnan though - while I certainly wouldn't call him a "great" actor I wouldn't say he's a "horrible" actor either (at least not now anyway).
I've seen him give good performances outside Bond (The Matador, Seraphim Falls and The Greatest) and bad performances (Butterfly on a Wheel and parts of Mamma Mia). I haven't seen the film but I've heard his performance being praised in "Love is All you Need".
I quite agree that Brosnan looked uncomfortable in parts of GE but I wouldn't say his performance was all bad at all (in fact there are bits I like such as his scene in the statue park with Alec, M's office, the train, his "in the end your just a bank robber..." speech in the control room and the "No for me" line before he drops Alec).
As for who is the better actor between him and Moore part of me is inclined to say Moore (though he too has his limitations).
- I've heard or read enough people complain about the "Too many people" scene for it to bother me.
- I grew up with Brosnan and since his are pretty much the only Bond films I owned back when I was a kid, I've likely watched him more than any other Bond. TWINE was my first Bond film and DAD was my first in the theater. But I've gotten older and though I once loved Brosnan, he's since come across as a poser to me.
- It's funny you mention LTK as a DH/LW ripoff score-wise as Kamen did those movies too. Lol
- Funny someone mentioned Henderson, I was just musing to myself about how great Gray was in YOLT and then how horrible he was in DAF
- Unrelated, but I am now going to refer to DAF as DAFUQ? Just thought of it. Genius, eh?
- Glad Apted didn't come back. DAD would only have been marginally better.
- I know the story behind Lazenby leaving Bond, but I really don't know whether to blame him, his agent, the press, the critics, or the producers, or a combination of any or all of the above
M didn't want Bond shot.
2. Lazenby turning down that multi picture deal EON offered him
3. DAF being made into a campy cornet piece of shytt instead of a serious flick
4. Kananga's death
5. Jaws in MR
6.Dalton not making a third (GE) film
7. The hate many fans want to heap on Dalton
8. Brosnan as Bond
9. DAD : everything from Jinx to Graves Robo cop suit to that psychedelic dream mask
to the silly Slo Mo scenes, the list is endless for this pitiful excuse of entertainment
I have always been one of the Dalton bashers on here and your point about how Craig has only done what Dalts did before but they receive contrasting credit etc, has been discussed many times.
My point has been (and remains so) that yes, Dalts was classically trained, and yes he looked the part. What he lacked was true big screen charisma (which explains his non -career in movies). Being a 'great actor' is one thing in the theatre, and a totally different thing on the big screen. Sometimes it's about what you don't do on the screen or the subtlest change of expression (which Connery was so good at). Dalton forgets he isn't on stage sometimes.
Craig has more going on, he has the charisma needed, and he is a true movie actor.
The fact that they both see the role in a similar way and approach it in a similar way doesn't necessarilly mean they both own the screen.
But, as ever that is just little old me (and a couple of others). We have a lot of Dalton fans here so you are in good company.
That said I feel sorry for the man in a way. He did at least TRY to make Bond a more down-to-earth character and had some great scenes. I think there is more to be commended in his role in the series than not. As much as I hate to bash the Bond I grew up with Dalton did leave the series with both his dignity and the characters dignity relitively in tact, which can't really be said for his successor :(
Personally I can see why Craig is praised more though. He's just more convincing and more compelling in the role. The scene in which he cradles a dying M made me feel more sorry for Bond than I have done since OHMSS - and that can largely be down to Craig's performance.
I do sort of agree with @NicNac that Dalton had a tendency to be quite dramatic in terms of his facial expressions in a way that Craig is not - especially in LTK. Is this theatrically or not? I don't know but compare the scene in the Hemingway House to the one in M's house in Skyfall or..better still the scene with M in the hotel in QoS. In both Bond is angry with M and perhaps more casual/messy than we are used to seeing him. In the former's case you can see the rage very clearly on his face, you can see him seething...you can kind of see him acting. In the latter two Craig just looks at M angrily yet we can tell he is annoyed. His performance is a bit more subtle.
Another example is the line: "you don't have to worry about me...I'm not going to go chasing him...he's not important...and neither was she" from QoS. In that one line delivery Craig managed to convey his seething anger without neeeding to go into "dramatic" mode.
Fine actor though he may be (and he's head and shoulders above all of them except Craig) this doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen in terms of being a 'movie star'.
I don't like the term but to be honest its pretty essential that you have this indefineable quality if you're going to play Bond.
Sean and Rog had it in spades, Brozza and Laz to a lesser degree and Craig has it although I think it's something he has to work on rather than it coming completely naturally.
When you look at great movie stars - Connery, Eastwood, Sly, Arnie, Cruise - their acting talents are pretty limited when compared with the De Niro's and Day Lewis's of this world.
If we were making a one off Bond film then it wouldn't matter but a Bond actor always has a responsibility to pass on the baton and Dalts (in the eyes of the public you understand not myself) came perilously close to dropping that baton.
And for all the Daltonites go on about how perfect he is he does veer towards overacting in places particularly LTK.
I do think Dalts was a tad guilty of overselling Bond's emotions. Such dramatic acting though is aces for the stage. Go nuts.
Another little off-moment for Dalts was the carousel scene with Kara. He was like a schoolboy in love. Well not quite that bad, but he was pushing that envelope.
I don't want to bash Dalts though. He did some good work. I was getting used him to by LTK, but then he was gone. Too bad. He might of got a little more unflappable, as he went along. Either way he was a better Bond than Broz IMO.
That's a no-brainer statement right there :)
Spot on @Wizard. Dalton is maybe my favourite Bond. I think he's the only actor (including Craig even) who really captured Fleming's character. But it's very telling that Dalton has almost never taken starring roles on screen (outside of Bond), before or after his time as 007. He's almost always in a supporting or villainous role.
The best of Broz's other lead roles for that matter, have carried more impact IMO.
I do like Cowboys and Aliens. It's a harmless, entertaining film, but I don't think Craig commands much of a presence.
He's essentially playing a Clint Eastwood type western-lead in this film, but not with anywhere near the gravitas Eastwood brought.
Craig is adequate. He gets the job done, but Harrison Ford, I think overshadows him in this film, even though his role is supportive to Craig's lead.
Funnily enough I agree. Ford upstaged Craig in that film.
I think one thing that Dalton has never really had outside of Bond is a 'big' director to his name. Most of the others have.
Dalton really seemed to immerse himself in Fleming's novels and spoke about them very prominently in interviews etc. Connery, Lazenby and Moore barely mentioned Fleming (if at all) and Brosnan paid lip service to the books but spoke far more passionately about the film version of Goldfinger as a major influence. That's just background, I suppose, but I think it's very telling.
In terms of what we see on screen, Dalton's Bond was far more like "a normal man" than the other versions. He was a bit moody, like the literary character, and not nearly as "in control." He was human and fallible and quite romantic. His dress sense, also, seems way more in line with the literary Bond, wearing simple comfortable clothes (unlike Moore and Brosnan who were tailored to the hilt.) Craig's Bond is a close second but the nature of the stories he's been in have taken him a little further from Fleming's character.
Rating the actors solely in terms of how close their portrayal is to Fleming, I'd go with the following:
1. Dalton
2. Craig
3. Lazenby
4. Connery*
5. Brosnan
6. Moore
*Connery is the only actor who totally changes his performance during the course of his tenure. If it wasn't for DAF and NSNA (where he moves much further away from the literary character) I'd probably put him above Lazenby.
Don't get me started on the slow mo scenes when I bought the DVD I thought it kept freezing :) Kananga's death wasn't bad, why Jaws in MR? DAF is a great film but the plot is just bad , I agree with you about Lazenby and Dalton. Brosnan was quite good ,you can't hate Dalton , and DAD was too fantasy.
Thanks for sharing. It's been a rather long time since I've last read Fleming. I think I will have to go back and revisit soon. I like the point you made about Dalton's clothes. It's always funny to me when I hear someone complain about his fashion sense. Isn't a spy supposed to blend in and not be noticed?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean about the nature of the stories in Craig's movies though.
But the device in OHMSS is also a portable photocopier so of course it's much bigger than the gadget from YOLT, which fit into Bond's pocket.
One of the ways I cope with the cognitive dissonance we have from Blofeld failing to recognize Bond from one movie to the next is to regard OHMSS as occurring in some alternative universe in which YOLT (as filmed) never happened, much as DAF seemed to pretend that OHMSS never happened.
As to your point about whether Blofeld should be able to see through Bond's Clark Kent disguise, YOLT or no YOLT, that would still assume that Blofeld would know what Bond looked like from a photo dossier on 007. That's not an unreasonable assumption but nothing that's explicitly established in OHMSS.
But what Blofeld does refer to are two things: first, that a proper herald doesn't seduce young ladies as Bond had done earlier, something that would have at least raised suspicion that "Sir Hilary Bray" wasn't who he claimed to be. Second, Blofeld refers to Bond's partner Campbell as having been talkative after being captured and - presumably - tortured before dying. This goes back to the novel, in which Bond is convinced that Campbell will be probably be tortured into revealing why he recognized 007 in front of Blofeld earlier in the story, prompting Bond's escape from Piz Gloria. I just assume that in the movie version, Campbell did reveal Bray's secret identity and that's how Blofeld knew who he was dealing with.
The filmmakers are essentially asking the Bond audience to forgive that they filmed the books, YOLT and OHMSS in inverse order.
Peter Hunt and company wanted to deliver the Fleming story, so they simply danced around the fact, that in the film continuity Blofeld and Bond had come face to face, two years earlier.
They could have allowed that Blofeld would recognize Bond, but then they would have had to deviate from the Fleming narrative, which clearly they didn't want to do.
The '60s is the only decade of Bond in which the films were shot within a few short years of their Fleming source material.
Six years, which is not much, was the longest duration between book and film in this decade, so there was a determination it seems, to work with what was non-dated source material at the time. Even YOLT the film, is authentically Japanese and incorporates numerous elements from the book, even if the broader story has been drastically altered. But the other 5 '60s films do make efforts to follow the Fleming source material fairly closely.
I think Eon made the right choice regarding OHMSS. They are saying roll with it.
Regarding DAF though, following on the back of OHMSS, there is no need to suspend disbelief here. Bond and Blofeld recognize each other just fine, andDAF does address the ending of OHMSS, as the film opens with Bond on the rampage, having finally tracked down Blofeld two years after the death of his wife.
Bond is clearly beyond the mourning stage at this point. He's back to his old self, with revenge upper most on his mind. In the pts we see that he gets his revenge, and then its on to the new adventure.
But Blofeld being such a core recurring presence at the time, wasn't going to be dumped that easy, so Eon contrived to bring him back via the doubles technique and squeezed another film out of him, which wasn't a bad idea, as the book didn't provide much in the way of a lead villain (The Spang Brothers) and by now there was big separation between the book publishing date and the new film. This separation would become the new norm. The '60s window had closed.
But Eon wasn't done with Ernst yet. Clearly they were saving him for yet another potential future film, as he was pointedly not killed during the oil-rig assault. His fate was left up in the air.
Interesting about Campbell in OHMSS the film. My take is that they left his being tortured up in the air.
I think Telly Blofeld, when describing Campbell to Bond, was alluding to Campbell's very energetic public protest of his innocense, as a wronged moutain climber being persecuted by the institute's guards.
Campbell did put on quite the show. Blofeld clearly didn't buy any of it though.
It looks as though Blofeld had him roughed up and killed in short order.
And from what we know of Blofeld, he might have killed him anyway just in case, as getting any real intel out of an actual agent like Campbell would have taken time.
I think we are asked to believe thatBond was discovered via his own indiscretions - rampant womanizing and suspect knowledge of heraldry.
I think the reason I got the notion that Bond's cover was blown by Campbell being tortured was that I just read the novel for the first time and then re-watched the film. I seized on the movie's dialogue about Campbell being talkative and jumped to a conclusion related to what I'd read in the book. But a key difference between the print & screen versions is that in the novel, Campbell wasn't working with Bond since 007's mission was highly classified; surprised to see Bond at Piz Gloria, he almost gives 007 away at once. Obviously, the movie's Campbell wouldn't have been so indiscreet. I think it's a good thing that it's open to interpretation.