It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Well sure, but I'm not sure anyone claimed that would be the case forever. The post you replied to of mine was me saying "At the moment he casts a long shadow and is Bond for an awful lot of people", I never said the audience will stay loyal to him in perpetuity and never accept anyone else. We get that you don't like Craig as Bond, but for an awful lot of other people he will be hard to replace. And his sheer longevity, as well as his success, adds to that. To be honest I'm kind of not sure what you're arguing about, it feels like you just want to gripe about Craig more than you are actually disagreeing with anything we're saying.
I noticed how you phrased it incidentally: "Poll a random selection of people in the early 80's who their favourite Bond is and I imagine Moore gets a good chunk of the votes" - I think you know full well that the bigger chunk probably would have voted for Connery! Which kind of shows how some of them stick around in the consciousness longer than others.
Yes, the key word being "all".
I just wanted to back up your point.
2. None of the Bond actors were ever close to the books, not even Dalton while there are scenes and dialogues here and there, those are still not enough.
3. Roger Moore was at his most comfortable in Moonraker, I'd say, his most versatile Bond portrayal.
4. As time goes by, the Bond feel in Brosnan's films are fading, they're now looking and feeling to me like some generic action films of 90s-2000s.
5. Licence To Kill has good cinematography, For Your Eyes Only has the worst.
6. Moore Bond films aged a lot more worse than Connery's, the same for his Bond (Moore).
7. The romance in Casino Royale is not for me, believable, neither Vesper's death moved me (I think the bombastic ending ruined it for me).
8. The Actress that Craig have the most chemistry with are Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes) and Naomie Harris (Moneypenny).
9. The theme song of A View To A Kill felt too much pretentious to be a Bond theme with sound effects and the obvious styles, decent theme but tend to be a bit corny.
001) You Only Live Twice is a better film than Thunderball.
002) George Lazenby’s performance as Bond is superior to Connery’s efforts in YOLT and DAF.
003) I find Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan to be the only Bond’s who gave consistently good performances. Connery’s waning enthusiasm becomes an issue for me personally, Moore’s performance in TMWTGG isn’t quite to my tastes, and I think Craig has a couple of uneven performances in both SP and NTTD.
004) The World Is Not Enough is not as bad as some make it out to be. It’s a pretty solid Bond adventure.
005) Daniel Craig’s at his best as Bond in QOS. I’d say the same about SF but I’m not sure if that’s a controversial opinion.
006) Peter Hunt should’ve made more Bond films going into the 70’s. I certainly think his output would’ve been much better than Guy Hamilton’s.
007) Goldeneye is the most popular/influential film of the Barbara Broccoli/Michael Wilson produced films. The name alone is practically a brand in and of itself.
008) Being more “grounded” and “realistic” doesn’t automatically mean “better.”
009) I think Craig perhaps may have stuck around too long as Bond.
0010) I think both Dalton and Brosnan deserved at least one more film. Perhaps if Dalton came aboard for AVTAK and Brosnan could’ve have one more film squeezed in for 2004/2005. As I said; the two most consistent Bonds.
0011) Nightfire >>>>> Goldeneye 64.
0012) From Russia With Love (the game) >>>>> Everything or Nothing.
0013) The only “definitive” Bond is the literary character.
1. Where does the film stray from the novel? There's the added DB5 chase at Auric Enterprises, Tilly dies earlier, and instead of Bond being a secretary he's a prisoner. And also Pussy alerts Felix instead of Bond. And also how does the novel best the film in non-plot things? I don't really have an opinion either way but curious about the reasoning
2. I have to disagree. Dalton through his two films shows it all. He's charming with Felix and Della, but switches his professionalism on a soon as he has to go after Sanchez. There's the same "kind-of" plan that's on flimsy ground when tries to infiltrate Sanchez's organisation. The same reliance on a woman (like Solitaire or Tiffany) to break in. And in TLD he shows a protective and caring side that also feels lifted from the page. There's him challenging with doing his job and actually killing others. Obviously, there are going to be differences, but Dalton gets quite close.
3. Moore in Octopussy is a more versatile performance I'd say. More range and more things to tackle: Vijay's death, anger with Orlov, desperation to get to the bomb, even the small bit of shock with Magda's Octopussy. In Moonraker, Bond is really only shaken by the centrifuge, and while Moore it brilliantly, there's not much else for him to act. Of course he's great as the gentleman spy though.
4. Well I would say that Brosnan's films are fading because he's getting further and further away, and his films are hardly the type of films that get a collective reappraisal years down the line. The early Moore films were probably the same as Brosnan era started.
5. Both seem a bit dull on screen, although I've seen screenshots where LTK looks lush (probably from the BluRay version or something).
6. Moore's Bond has obviously aged badly in two respects: the women in TMWTGG and the cards in LALD. Then more subtly there's the issue of race in LALD, and maybe the depiction of India in OP. That's it (I'm not counting the "a woman" stuff in MR because that seemed like an attempt at character development). With Connery there's the treatment of Quarrel, him being physical with Tania, the barn scene Pussy, Shrublands with Molly etc, along with the more "subtle" stuff like the portrayal of Gypsies, "you swim like a man" whatever.
Put crudely, there's loads of more stuff that could get Connery's Bond "cancelled" as opposed to Moore's.
7. The falling house and the drowning are the weakest part of CR for sure. Vesper's death as a suicide loses power because of that end for me. In the novel, it feels like her own reaction to how the betrayal is ruining her, while in the film it feels like a reaction to Bond finding out about the betrayal. The romance I find is quite good, with both the train and the shower scene being quite strong. But overall I can just buy that after a dangerous job to the extent that neither have ever experienced, there would be a euphoria that would draw them together.
8. Is there chemistry with Camille? I mean there's as much there as you'd get with an M, plus a little bit sexual tension. They just help each other, not much banter or back and forth. With Harris its strong in Skyfall, and even in Spectre as well. But for me, Green is the highest.
9. 100% agree. The transition from verse to chorus isn't particularly strong. Corny is certainly a word to describe it.
Excluding the videogame things (as I'm unqualified to comment), I agree with all these takes for the most part.
I think Connery in DAF does a good job with the jokes of the script but Lazenby does alright with better material so I'd rather watch that. With YOLT vs Thunderball, I dislike both so I can't really fault it either way.
In terms of grounded meaning better, I don't think that it automatically makes the film better. But I think by having to carefully consider how the film functions in reality could mean more care in the process and thus a better film.
I didn't say strayed, but more like the changes they've done that everyone thought were improvements from the book when it's actually not.
A. The book's treatment of Pussy Galore is much better, at least with the 'converting into straight' thing, there's a consent from her, and it's naturally happened, she was smitten by Bond at their first encounter together in Goldfinger's meeting with the other gangsters, calling him 'handsome' many times, unlike in the film, where she disliked him then it's Bond who have made the move.
B. Then Bond did a lot of spy things in the book, meanwhile in the film, he was mostly captured and did nothing, yes, I do liked him doing secretarial things for Goldfinger himself, because he's doing what was described in his job, being an agent gathering information through disguise of simple works.
C. Tilly's death had much more impact in the book, it became Bond's motivation to kill Goldfinger more, her death made an impact on Bond, it had emotional resonance, meanwhile, in the film, she'd just died by being ran off by Oddjob's bowler hat with blades and it incarcerated her, without Bond knowing, no emotional impact, Tilly did more in the book, in the film, her inclusion's almost an afterthought.
I though think that Goldfinger's plot improved upon the book like what I've said in my previous original post, but the other aspects, not so much.
The thing with Dalton was, he tend to be the Craig Bond Lite (1.0), what he portrayed was not that far off from how Craig portrayed the character.
The Bond in the books was not calculated, naive, a bit immature or childish at times, having panic attacks at times or doing frustrated moves, negative about getting himself out of situation alive, and sometimes, a bit careless, he was also having this dark and dry humor and witty, he often comes off as out of character (think of the "Flowers Can Scream When They're Picked" Chapter in 'Moonraker'), he's often a bully (I liked how he was always at odds with Tiger Tanaka during their training, and swearing or cursing words at Goldfinger, when he was strapped on the saw table) those are not Dalton's Bond, very far from it.
Like what I've said in my (previous) original post, they've got some bits here and there, but none of them comes the closest.
Dalton have some bits here and there, then so the other Bonds, those are just very few.
For me, it's not just the treatment of women, it's the style, aesthetics and the sound overall, compare Connery Bond's clothings to Moore Bond's (Neutral Colored Sharp Suits to Bell Bottoms and Pastel Colored Suits with printed Neckties) Connery's seemed more timeless while Moore very much reflected the era he's in, very 70s, the sounds (think of the Discotheque TSWLM soundtrack, or the 80s Stereo Sound in FYEO) meanwhile, the Connery Era soundtracks were much more timeless, just standard orchestral soundtracks, not reflecting very much of its time.
I think it's just that the romance was underdeveloped and rushed, like the film just played the romance fast forwardly, that's all, maybe more scenes of them together, just not enough.
In Moonraker, he had showed a lot of sides: aside from the Centrifuge, there's the scene with Manuela at the dark alley in Rio when he had saved her from Jaws, then when he and Holly met again when they're held in captive by Hugo Drax, that's when he had showed his vulnerability, then at the fight with Chang in Venice that highlighted his physicality and seriousness, then in the shuttle when Bond was to deactivate the Gravity by tricking everyone into collapsing showed his wits and resourcefulness without being comical (in a realistic way), then at the Aztec Underground when he had fought a Python Snake and being empowered by Jaws, or at the end when he and Holly are targeting the bombs that have been dropped to Earth, he was serious in there.
And his line deliveries felt natural and even had many facial expressions and reactive to his surroundings, he was full of life in 'Moonraker' not the stiff or forced performance that I've seen him in the previous Bond films.
1A. OK I see that. I can't disagree too much because neither work for me: one media where Bond is magically attractive in himself enough to charm Pussy, but who turns by herself, and another where Bond "charms" her in a dodgy barn scene, but where Pussy's 180 is triggered by Bond.
1B. I think the spy stuff from the novel is still mostly in the film: the most spylike stuff is the golf game, following Goldfinger, building a relationship, etc. And I believe the the spy stuff post-buzzsaw loses credibility because it's like Goldfinger gave him key to his demise, and kept Tilly alive as well. It's not like Bond did the work himself to wig a job as Goldfinger's secretary (which would have been much better for the novel). Now I also agree that it's disappointing for Bond to do nothing at all in the film. But that's why I say they're about the same.
1C. This is quite a good point. I think potentially the film does do better in showing us Jill dead to make up for it, but yeah Tilly's death is a damp squib in the film.
2. I think that it's impossible to characterise "one" Bond from novels. I think that Dalton probably gets close to the Bond of LALD-DAF. For those novels, I mostly agree with your characterisation of Bond, but I'd like to say that Bond is "partly calculated" rather than not calculated at all. Bond quotes in MR (and later in Dr. No) first principle, to secure his base, before he goes off and does things. He also quotes in Casino Royale that he bets on even chances, or as close to even as he can get them. That reminds me of LTK, where he makes quite a few calculated decisions, where it then goes all wrong and then tries to ride his luck the rest of the way. And Bond is careless in the film as well: he screws over many other plans, and steps on everybody's toes in the film. He meets Pam, and verifiably so, and yet still tries to go undercover with Sanchez.
Childish and naive: I'd need more explanation for. But I think the desperation, frustration and fear that you talk about mainly come from the later novels as Bond is tired of his work and has to fight against not only Blofeld but himself as well. The flower scene with Gala, as well as the whole swimming day out is very reminiscent of Bond with Kara on the Ferris Wheel: both are date like scenarios where you wouldn't expect Bond, but he's still lovely and charming in both.
In terms of the humour, from LALD-DAF it's a bit light from Bond, but contextual: he makes fun of the villains, which is perhaps missing in Dalton's era, but there are still dry and dark humour in the Dalton era: "he met a dead end", "he got the boot", "you're full of it". And I think your talk of Bond of bully is simply the humour of the later novels: Bond is sarcastic and he pokes fun at others.
With the overall humour of the character in all 12 novels, I could see there are gaps, but I think Dalton isn't lacking in the era of novels I mentioned.
6. Ok. I misunderstood. I think Moore was unlucky that 70s fashion is kind of easily viewable to the average viewer. And it isn't just Moore, but Connery in DAF with the pink tie was horrendous. But yeah the average view won't notice Dalton's baggier suits, or maybe even Craig's tighter ones, in comparison with how extravagant 70s fashion could be.
7. Maybe. It could be the novel influencing my opinion of the film's romance, but it works for me.
3. I overlooked the Rio sequence and that's fair, and there is some fear of Jaws etc, but the rest are cool scenes in line with Roger Moore's unfazed, composed, and confident Bond. Octopussy I think gives Moore a bit more to chew on.
I don't think it would've worked (in his later years), especially if he was portrayed as having a father figure/mentor in Dr. Karl Mortner.
The role was actually based on David Bowie (and David did really looked young in the 80s, seen him in The Hunger), I think they really liked that youthful yet weird and maniac look for Zorin.
I actually think that he was quite attracted to Stacey Sutton at some point in the film (I mean, why to kidnap her in the climax, right?)
Jack Wade is better than most Felix Leiters. No, one of the worst opinions I've seen. True that many versions of Leiter are miscast or underwhelming, but Wade is little more than comic relief played by an actor who was the main villain and could've easily been dropped. Done correctly like casting Jeffrey Wright shows why Leiter is valuable.
Films should now embrace continuation content more strongly. No real opinion. We enjoyed the films for years with some scattered references back to previous films. Depends on how they handle it.
The films require some degree of camp/silliness. Completely disagree. Humor and camp/silly things are different and the early films showed how effective the balance was. Does anyone really think double-taking pigeons, slot-pulling elephants, redneck sheriffs and the like ever really added anything to the experience of a Bond film?
Horror elements are their most effective in MR. Probably. There are some dark moments for such a crazy film, which makes it more interesting.
Few Bond girls match Kara Milovy and her chemistry with Dalton. No again. She was okay, but does she really stand out in the minds of the average fan or movie-goer? She doesn't for this hardcore fan.
Sean Connery will always be the standard. Likely. Although as the years go by and fewer original fans are around, it could change this.
Despite other issues, QoS is the most stylish/dynamic Craig film. I'll take CR or SF for this, but QoS is quite underrated, IMO.
Lighter films are not detrimental and grow the franchise more. We haven't had one in years, so it's hard to measure now, but the AVTAKs, DAFs and MRs seem to rank lower in most polls.
The low key, detective elements of DN should be used more often. Some of those can easily fit into future films and I like the spying aspect of it. But at this point it can never go back to doing a whole film with that low-key approach.
Vehicle gadgets are more exciting than field gadgets.
I definitely don't think so. TLD's keyring finder, or even Bond's transforming sniper jacket, is more exciting to me than missiles behind the headlights.
Jack Wade is better than most Felix Leiters.
I guess I could see this, though I don't necessarily agree. Most of the Leiters aren't much in the way of characters, and Wade is written as a foil to Bond, being kind of his opposite. He actually has a concept behind him. Jack Lord acts like American Bond, which isn't interesting, Jeffrey Wright does a range of things, going from aloof cool guy, to beleaguered skeptic, to BFF, and most of the others are on the bland side. I think Hedison, particularly in LALD, is a good match though.
Films should now embrace continuation content more strongly. Like comics and books? I see no reason to, unless they have some wonderful idea.
The films require some degree of camp/silliness. For sure. It's always been there. DN and FRWL were recognized as silly in contemporary reviews, and everything that happens on Spectre Island in FRWL is about as silly as anything from the Moore era. GF and YOLT contain few if any moments that are not silly. Brainwashing babes to sterilize chickens with their cosmetic kits is silly. I think a lot of fans want to think that the early movies were more serious, but they really weren't. Some of the later ones may have had more punctuated and obvious silly moments, but they were briefer than some of the extended silly sequences you had in the 1960s.
Few Bond girls match Kara Milovy and her chemistry with Dalton. I think I agree about their chemistry, though I credit Dalton more than d'Abo here. (Which I realize is a weird thing to say when talking about chemistry)
Sean Connery will always be the standard. I think it's been a very long time since this was true. The Platonic ideal seems to be the vague concept of Bond that the characters in Goldeneye monologue about. None of the last three Bonds have done much of anything to recall Sean Connery.
Despite other issues, QoS is the most stylish/dynamic Craig film. I think one can take their pick of the last four, honestly. They're all wonderfully made films.
Lighter films are not detrimental and grow the franchise more. Definitely. GF is among the lightest and most ridiculous of all Bond films, and it's also the alleged model for the series.
The low key, detective elements of DN should be used more often. I don't think this was ever abandoned for more than a couple films, if that. But yeah, it should usually be there!
They also have had a licence to kill. I'm talking about the writing and performance of the character.
Aston Martin DB5 was Connery's car until GE. They erased the Moore era with that movie!
;)
Anyway, Craig's Bond owes a lot to Connery's. Casino Royale has a lot of cinematic Bond despite being an adaptation of a Fleming novel.