› ›

SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1…2021232526…47

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,382
    Octopussy wrote: »

    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO.

    Thing is, the cinematic Bond has been around for much longer than the book Bond was, and more people have watched a Bond film than read a Bond book, so ignoring the expectations that your audience have from a Bond film is a strange choice I think. You can vary it but there are certain beats that Bond always hits, and the swagger is one of them. Even in something like FRWL, where at times he's wounded and cornered and vulnerable, he's still convinced that he's an awesome guy: you can just see it in his eyes.
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    We're not talking about him being groundbreaking though. Although I would say that something like the clothed shower scene in Casino Royale shows a level of sensitivity that even Dalton didn't get near. "Are you calling me a horse's arse?!" isn't quite the same
    :D

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,117
    Then again, what Craig does lack is elegance. Which Dalton and Lazenby had in spades. In these modern days I feel the refined nature of Bond's character hasn't been captured well, with the possible exception of QOS.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    @Getafix @Octopussy I agree with you on Kara but that was more casual than something deep meaningful long term. That's why i said "might" because i could be wrong and Dalton could have played a lover but who knows.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.

    I agree that Craig has managed to do both, but I'll always prefer Dalton's portrayal of Bond over DC, personally.
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO.

    Thing is, the cinematic Bond has been around for much longer than the book Bond was, and more people have watched a Bond film than read a Bond book, so ignoring the expectations that your audience have from a Bond film is a strange choice I think. You can vary it but there are certain beats that Bond always hits, and the swagger is one of them. Even in something like FRWL, where at times he's wounded and cornered and vulnerable, he's still convinced that he's an awesome guy: you can just see it in his eyes.

    You've misunderstood me. I am completely aware that a general audience prefers a Bond that evokes more of the quintessential cinematic Bond characteristics which is apart of the reason that Dalton's Bond wasn't widely accepted such as the likes of Connery and Moore. I was merely stating that Fleming's Bond to me never struck me as having those personality traits. They were clearly incorporated into the character for the cinema to make him more appealing to mass audience.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Octopussy wrote: »
    You've misunderstood me. I am completely aware that a general audience prefers a Bond that evokes more of the quintessential cinematic Bond characteristics which is apart of the reason that Dalton's Bond wasn't widely accepted such as the likes of Connery and Moore. I was merely stating that Fleming's Bond to me never struck me as having those personality traits. They were clearly incorporated into the character for the cinema to make him more appealing to mass audience.

    I see your point here and I agree with you. Dalton has recently become my number one portrayal of the character for the reasons you described, despite those reasons also contributing to what was essentially a rejection from audiences.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,382
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Then again, what Craig does lack is elegance. Which Dalton and Lazenby had in spades. In these modern days I feel the refined nature of Bond's character hasn't been captured well, with the possible exception of QOS.

    I don't think so, no.
    Octopussy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.

    I agree that Craig has managed to do both, but I'll always prefer Dalton's portrayal of Bond over DC, personally.
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO.

    Thing is, the cinematic Bond has been around for much longer than the book Bond was, and more people have watched a Bond film than read a Bond book, so ignoring the expectations that your audience have from a Bond film is a strange choice I think. You can vary it but there are certain beats that Bond always hits, and the swagger is one of them. Even in something like FRWL, where at times he's wounded and cornered and vulnerable, he's still convinced that he's an awesome guy: you can just see it in his eyes.

    You've misunderstood me. I am completely aware that a general audience prefers a Bond that evokes more of the quintessential cinematic Bond characteristics which is apart of the reason that Dalton's Bond wasn't widely accepted such as the likes of Connery and Moore. I was merely stating that Fleming's Bond to me never struck me as having those personality traits. They were clearly incorporated into the character for the cinema to make him more appealing to mass audience.

    They were, yeah. But I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion: we're talking about what Dalton and Craig's versions share and which did it successfully.

    I don't see Fleming's version of Bond as inherently superior just because it's written down. Bond is a massive global icon because of the films, and I think there are plenty of places where you could argue that the films improved on the books. Look at the plot to Goldfinger for example.
    I rather love that No Time To Die pays tribute to and takes its name, not from a Fleming creation, but from a Cubby Broccoli one. Because at this point in history I'd argue that Broccoli is of equal importance to Fleming in terms of being one the father figures of Bond in terms of being a global icon.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    Octopussy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    I love it, but it does have big problems. Lazenby is toppermost of course, plus it does sag in the middle a bit and the undercranked fight scenes are a bit ridiculous to some people. What I would call a very big problem is the love story: it's supposed to be all about them falling in love but they couldn't be bothered to show it and just do it in a montage. So one minute Tracy doesn't want to see Bond, slip a montage in, and she's desperate to marry him. It's not very well-handled.

    Octopussy wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    He's not just doing what Dalton did though. He's playing it similarly seriously, but he's adding in movie star presence and a real feel for Bond's huge self-confidence and ego, which Dalton missed. It's not the same performance, it's much more appealing to an audience and much more varied. He's also seen as being sexier by women I think, which doesn't harm anything.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    As for Lazenby, he pretty shot himself in the foot and rightfully never earned the love of audiences, so that's all on him.

    I've never seen The Rocketeer but have heard it's a great film. I'll look into that. I agree that Lazenby shot himself in the foot with his attitude at the time.
    Resurrection wrote: »
    I agree with the rest of the post except the bolded part, Dalton is my favorite bond but he may not be able to play a lover which Lazenby and Craig did.

    I disagree as Dalton definitely demonstrated he could play a lover in The Living Daylights with his relationship with Kara, IMO.

    Bond and Kara are one of the better relationships in the series, IMHO. I'd go a bit further and say that I wish they had done a Tiffany Case-style breakup near the beginning of LTK to add another dimension to Bond's frustration.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.

    I’m totally on board with you on Craig. He and Connery exhibit all the things I like about James Bond, and nothing that I don’t, which is why they’re my two favorites. Dalton, though...he was consciously trying to do something different. Fleming’s Bond wasn’t always self-assured and he didn’t always have a killer quip locked and loaded for any situation. This is the Bond that Dalton wanted to bring to the screen, it’s just a shame that EON had other ideas, judging by his two entries.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    mtm wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Then again, what Craig does lack is elegance. Which Dalton and Lazenby had in spades. In these modern days I feel the refined nature of Bond's character hasn't been captured well, with the possible exception of QOS.

    I don't think so, no.
    Octopussy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.

    I agree that Craig has managed to do both, but I'll always prefer Dalton's portrayal of Bond over DC, personally.
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO.

    Thing is, the cinematic Bond has been around for much longer than the book Bond was, and more people have watched a Bond film than read a Bond book, so ignoring the expectations that your audience have from a Bond film is a strange choice I think. You can vary it but there are certain beats that Bond always hits, and the swagger is one of them. Even in something like FRWL, where at times he's wounded and cornered and vulnerable, he's still convinced that he's an awesome guy: you can just see it in his eyes.

    You've misunderstood me. I am completely aware that a general audience prefers a Bond that evokes more of the quintessential cinematic Bond characteristics which is apart of the reason that Dalton's Bond wasn't widely accepted such as the likes of Connery and Moore. I was merely stating that Fleming's Bond to me never struck me as having those personality traits. They were clearly incorporated into the character for the cinema to make him more appealing to mass audience.

    They were, yeah. But I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion: we're talking about what Dalton and Craig's versions share and which did it successfully.

    I don't see Fleming's version of Bond as inherently superior just because it's written down. Bond is a massive global icon because of the films, and I think there are plenty of places where you could argue that the films improved on the books. Look at the plot to Goldfinger for example.
    I rather love that No Time To Die pays tribute to and takes its name, not from a Fleming creation, but from a Cubby Broccoli one. Because at this point in history I'd argue that Broccoli is of equal importance to Fleming in terms of being one the father figures of Bond in terms of being a global icon.

    Yes I'd go along with that, even though I'm a massive Fleming fan first and foremost. Dalton brought out the Fleming Bond traits far more than any other actor, but as other have already said on here, this wasn't as appealing to audiences as the swagger and macho charisma of the cinematic Bond that Connery had in spades, and Craig managed to emulate too.
  • BT3366BT3366
    edited April 2020 Posts: 1,917
    The audience, the audience, that's what this thread keeps coming back to. Had they let the audience determine who should be Bond than Brosnan may still be in the role. The audience didn't give Lazenby a chance. How many back in 1969/70 knew he was a one-off? It wasn't like there was social media and Entertainment Tonight shouting it out. Hell, they bought tickets to CR '67.

    One of the things that helped Dalton's Bond standout in the late '80s was he wasn't following the Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Willis/Gibson macho action guy. I still think he had his moments, probably more so than Moore did.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2020 Posts: 6,296
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    Its not the best film but its certainly the most overrated film.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    echo wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.

    There's something really effeminate about young Brosnan. He looks like a pre op here.

    Fortunately he grew into his looks as he got older.
  • jobojobo
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,507
    Have anyone here seen Remington Steele? Is it worth watching? I am kinda curious what it was the general audience saw in Brosnan which made them so convinced he was the "perfect cast for Bond"?

    I don't see it myself to be honest...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,296
    Birdleson wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The audience, the audience, that's what this thread keeps coming back to. Had they let the audience determine who should be Bond than Brosnan may still be in the role. The audience didn't give Lazenby a chance. How many back in 1969/70 knew he was a one-off? It wasn't like there was social media and Entertainment Tonight shouting it out. Hell, they bought tickets to CR '67.

    One of the things that helped Dalton's Bond standout in the late '80s was he wasn't following the Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Willis/Gibson macho action guy. I still think he had his moments, probably more so than Moore did.

    But EON will not keeping making films that large masses aren't going to see.

    Anecdotally (so take it for what it is), I don't remember one person back in '87 telling me how much they enjoyed TLD (most thought of it as serviceable, but no genuine excitement), and it did bother me a bit, because I thought he was going to be huge in the role. Pre-internet, so any sampling was limited, but that was my personal experience, and that seemed to be the all around vibe. LTK seemed to get a much harsher reaction, with my mother being the only one I knew who enjoyed it at the time.

    I was smack in the target audience when TLD came out (17). Because I was raised on late Moore (OP was my first Bond in a theater; I have a vague recollection of watching LALD on TV), and because I had already started to read Fleming, Dalton and his take were both exciting and refreshing. As I walked out of the theater, a local TV station interviewed me and I said, "It's one of the best!" But I think I was in the minority back then.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    Agreed on Dalton.... Flemings Bond. However, OHMSS was amazing because of Peter Hunt, the score, the script, the overall cast etc. Lazenby was ok....just ok.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,585
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.

    There's something really effeminate about young Brosnan. He looks like a pre op here.

    Fortunately he grew into his looks as he got older.

    I have never understood how/why Brosnan limped away from Bond and didn't find a way out of that contract. Where there's a will, there's a way, especually when it comes to contracts of this sort. You don't think MGM/EON had a legal team that could have managed a buy out or a way out of it? It wasn't like Remington Steele was a hit show. It was pretty much done. You simply do not give up playing James Bond so you can do the final season of a TV drama. You don't.

    For some reason, I think there's revisionist history going on with Bros. He didn't really want it at the time.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited April 2020 Posts: 8,183
    Birdleson wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Have anyone here seen Remington Steele? Is it worth watching? I am kinda curious what it was the general audience saw in Brosnan which made them so convinced he was the "perfect cast for Bond"?

    I don't see it myself to be honest...

    I tried it a couple of times when it first aired and really didn't like it. It was silly. I disliked Pierce particularly. Hence I was very down when he got the role of Bond, and overjoyed when it went to Dalton instead. I was very surprised that Brosnan was actually pretty strong GE.

    If I saw Remington Steele in 1985 and met others who expressed the opinion that Brosnan should be Bond, I would have said they were utterly insane. Brosnan in that show IMO made a pretty good approximation of Cary Grant in screwball comedy mode, but there’s nothing particularly Bondian about him in that show AT ALL. In fact I’m very glad he resisted reprising that act as Bond. It’s a totally different beast, and in retrospect it’s a very atypical performance of Brosnan and I fully understand why he became resentful of that show beyond the fact he lost the Bond role because of it.

    When you see the projects he took after that show was canceled, it’s obvious how much he wanted to distance himself from that image and show he could play a more hard boiled character when given the opportunity. I saw THE FOURTH PROTOCOL awhile back, his first post-RS role where he plays a cold Russian assassin. That at least convinces me that if he actually had gotten the Bond role, he probably wouldn’t have done anything too different from what Dalton did because he seemed all game for playing darker colder take on Bond that John Glen wanted to portray in TLD. Maybe LTK would have still happened under Brosnan. But as things turned out, there was no chance GE would continue what Dalton did so he was pretty much forced to do an approximation of Connery and Moore because that’s what audiences would expect and it wasn’t a good time to take risks for EON.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.

    There's something really effeminate about young Brosnan. He looks like a pre op here.

    Fortunately he grew into his looks as he got older.

    I have never understood how/why Brosnan limped away from Bond and didn't find a way out of that contract. Where there's a will, there's a way, especually when it comes to contracts of this sort. You don't think MGM/EON had a legal team that could have managed a buy out or a way out of it? It wasn't like Remington Steele was a hit show. It was pretty much done. You simply do not give up playing James Bond so you can do the final season of a TV drama. You don't.

    For some reason, I think there's revisionist history going on with Bros. He didn't really want it at the time.

    The narrative is that the ratings spiked after rumors of Brosnan getting Bond happened, which is why NBC decided not to cancel because it suddenly had a resurgence. NBC seemed to be willing to accommodate for EON, but I think ultimately Cubby didn’t want Brosnan to have a TV show at the same time as Bond. Remember, this is the same producer that went mad over The Man From UNCLE because it was originally titled “Ian Fleming’s Solo” and his argument was that the TV show was feeding off of Bond merely because it featured a character named Solo, which GF had a character named as such.
  • DRush76DRush76
    edited April 2020 Posts: 533
    Is "SKYFALL" the best Bond movie? Hmmm . . . NO. In fact, it's one of my least favorite Bond films in the franchise. I thought it was marred by too much sloppy writing and sexism. I think it's one of the most overrated Bond films I have ever seen.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited April 2020 Posts: 3,327
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Have anyone here seen Remington Steele? Is it worth watching? I am kinda curious what it was the general audience saw in Brosnan which made them so convinced he was the "perfect cast for Bond"?

    I don't see it myself to be honest...

    I tried it a couple of times when it first aired and really didn't like it. It was silly. I disliked Pierce particularly. Hence I was very down when he got the role of Bond, and overjoyed when it went to Dalton instead. I was very surprised that Brosnan was actually pretty strong GE.

    If I saw Remington Steele in 1985 and met others who expressed the opinion that Brosnan should be Bond, I would have said they were utterly insane. Brosnan in that show IMO made a pretty good approximation of Cary Grant in screwball comedy mode, but there’s nothing particularly Bondian about him in that show AT ALL. In fact I’m very glad he resisted reprising that act as Bond. It’s a totally different beast, and in retrospect it’s a very atypical performance of Brosnan and I fully understand why he became resentful of that show beyond the fact he lost the Bond role because of it.

    When you see the projects he took after that show was canceled, it’s obvious how much he wanted to distance himself from that image and show he could play a more hard boiled character when given the opportunity. I saw THE FOURTH PROTOCOL awhile back, his first post-RS role where he plays a cold Russian assassin. That at least convinces me that if he actually had gotten the Bond role, he probably wouldn’t have done anything too different from what Dalton did because he seemed all game for playing darker colder take on Bond that John Glen wanted to portray in TLD. Maybe LTK would have still happened under Brosnan. But as things turned out, there was no chance GE would continue what Dalton did so he was pretty much forced to do an approximation of Connery and Moore because that’s what audiences would expect and it wasn’t a good time to take risks for EON.

    The first time I saw Brozza was in The Long Good Friday (best film of all time), and he looked great in that. When rumours floated about him being the next Bond, one glimpse of him as the ice cold killer pointing his gun at Bob Hoskins, I was convinced he would make a great Bond.

    I never saw Remington Steele so cannot comment on his performance there, but I seriously doubt Brosnan would have been as vocal as Dalton was about wanting to return to the Fleming novels, had he got the gig back in 1987. He probably would have ended up giving us more of the same that we eventually got from him - a super hero in a suit, modelled on a combo of Connery and Moore. I never got the impression he was a huge fan of the novels, like Dalton was.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Brosnan probably wouldn’t have been as vocal, but I have confidence John Glen would have pushed him into that direction in 1986. There’s moments in FYEO, OP, and AVTAK where you can see that Glen wanted to get a tougher Bond out of Moore. With Dalton, he was able to push more for that hard edge in a way he couldn’t with Moore. I do believe Brosnan would have been up for that, especially if it meant shaking off that image people had of him in Remington Steele where he’s mostly a lovable goof.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Brosnan probably wouldn’t have been as vocal, but I have confidence John Glen would have pushed him into that direction in 1986. There’s moments in FYEO, OP, and AVTAK where you can see that Glen wanted to get a tougher Bond out of Moore. With Dalton, he was able to push more for that hard edge in a way he couldn’t with Moore. I do believe Brosnan would have been up for that, especially if it meant shaking off that image people had of him in Remington Steele where he’s mostly a lovable goof.

    Yes maybe. I sometimes forget Glen also was pushing for that direction too. And Brozza would have towed the line, because he desperately wanted the gig.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,043
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Thunderball wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    As for Lazenby, he pretty shot himself in the foot and rightfully never earned the love of audiences, so that's all on him.

    As soon as I saw @Octopussy post I wanted to respond but you did more succinctly than I could manage.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 16,382
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Then again, what Craig does lack is elegance. Which Dalton and Lazenby had in spades. In these modern days I feel the refined nature of Bond's character hasn't been captured well, with the possible exception of QOS.

    I don't think so, no.
    Octopussy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.

    I agree that Craig has managed to do both, but I'll always prefer Dalton's portrayal of Bond over DC, personally.
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO.

    Thing is, the cinematic Bond has been around for much longer than the book Bond was, and more people have watched a Bond film than read a Bond book, so ignoring the expectations that your audience have from a Bond film is a strange choice I think. You can vary it but there are certain beats that Bond always hits, and the swagger is one of them. Even in something like FRWL, where at times he's wounded and cornered and vulnerable, he's still convinced that he's an awesome guy: you can just see it in his eyes.

    You've misunderstood me. I am completely aware that a general audience prefers a Bond that evokes more of the quintessential cinematic Bond characteristics which is apart of the reason that Dalton's Bond wasn't widely accepted such as the likes of Connery and Moore. I was merely stating that Fleming's Bond to me never struck me as having those personality traits. They were clearly incorporated into the character for the cinema to make him more appealing to mass audience.

    They were, yeah. But I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion: we're talking about what Dalton and Craig's versions share and which did it successfully.

    I don't see Fleming's version of Bond as inherently superior just because it's written down. Bond is a massive global icon because of the films, and I think there are plenty of places where you could argue that the films improved on the books. Look at the plot to Goldfinger for example.
    I rather love that No Time To Die pays tribute to and takes its name, not from a Fleming creation, but from a Cubby Broccoli one. Because at this point in history I'd argue that Broccoli is of equal importance to Fleming in terms of being one the father figures of Bond in terms of being a global icon.

    Yes I'd go along with that, even though I'm a massive Fleming fan first and foremost. Dalton brought out the Fleming Bond traits far more than any other actor, but as other have already said on here, this wasn't as appealing to audiences as the swagger and macho charisma of the cinematic Bond that Connery had in spades, and Craig managed to emulate too.

    The books are a fantastic read yeah, and I wouldn't say that Craig is playing the same guy as in those pages (especially not in Casino) but I think I'd actually hazard a suggestion that he's more interesting than the book Bond. I don't find that Bond in the books has all that much to him really. Dalton is closer, sure, but he's still not the same character for my money, so I'll take the one who's great to watch and more interesting any day of the week.
    Although Daylights is still one of, if not my most, favourite Bonds, so I don't hate him or anything! :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Sorry, I had responded to the previous page and now realize that most of my points below were already made by others. Still, having my say.

    No, Dalton and Lazenby just don't have that charisma that the other four possess. That is why neither of them had any success as a leading man outside of the franchise, not even in television. More films may have helped, but mass audiences loved the other four guys immediately. It was just never going to happen with those two; the fan community sees their strengths, but the average filmgoer wants a Bond that lights ups the screen. It's been said on here for years that Dalton did what Craig did first, but really he didn't. Yes, more serious, but he never gave us that blast of angry wit, that sexual prowess; it just wasn't there, it wasn't within his capabilities and the audiences want that in a Bond.

    Yes exactly.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Sorry, I had responded to the previous page and now realize that most of my points below were already made by others. Still, having my say.

    No, Dalton and Lazenby just don't have that charisma that the other four possess. That is why neither of them had any success as a leading man outside of the franchise, not even in television. More films may have helped, but mass audiences loved the other four guys immediately. It was just never going to happen with those two; the fan community sees their strengths, but the average filmgoer wants a Bond that lights ups the screen. It's been said on here for years that Dalton did what Craig did first, but really he didn't. Yes, more serious, but he never gave us that blast of angry wit, that sexual prowess; it just wasn't there, it wasn't within his capabilities and the audiences want that in a Bond.

    Yes exactly.

    Agreed, again bang on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,382
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    I don't know really, it's not a huge leap from his killing of Stromberg to that I think. I could see him there.
Sign In or Register to comment.