›

YOLT vs. DAF

13

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    @haserot, I think it might be best to stop replying to him. He's clearly bating. It's a common troll tactic. Ignore him and he won't have any replies to give you. Flag him so the Mods can be made aware of his presence and Move on to let them get the Job done. ;)

    Should I flag your insults then, murdock? That's not my style. It's a debate, and yeah, if you can't keep up, then ignore my posts. SUre respect that better than having to insult someone for a different point of view.

    Please enlighten me. when did I ever insult you? When I jokingly said you were a bad Bond villain? If you can't tell a joke from an insult then maybe you should get off your computer for a while.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Sorry dude, the insults are there.
    Follow your own advice.
    You don't like my opinions, ignore me.
    Easy.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    Sorry dude, the insults are there.
    Follow your own advice.
    You don't like my opinions, ignore me.
    Easy.

    It's hard to ignore you when you spam the entire board. Let me remind you of the rules once more.

    Spam
    Posts that are deemed as ‘spam’ should also be avoided. These may include mass flooding of identical posts in a thread, or across several threads, posts that contain no active remarks that add to the topic discussion (such as one-word posts) or posts that, regardless of quality, are not related to the topic at hand.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    It's not easy to ignore you doubleohdad if you transform the forum into this:

    - random member: Yeah it's pretty cold out there.
    - you: Roger Moore is responsible.

    - random member: The Dark Knight is a great movie.
    - you: wouldn't be had Roger Moore been in it.

    ...
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Murdock wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    Sorry dude, the insults are there.
    Follow your own advice.
    You don't like my opinions, ignore me.
    Easy.

    It's hard to ignore you when you spam the entire board. Let me remind you of the rules once more.

    Spam
    Posts that are deemed as ‘spam’ should also be avoided. These may include mass flooding of identical posts in a thread, or across several threads, posts that contain no active remarks that add to the topic discussion (such as one-word posts) or posts that, regardless of quality, are not related to the topic at hand.

    (shrug) There's lots of threads. Just ignore me. Or debate.
    Lead, follow or get out of the way.
  • Problem_EliminatorProblem_Eliminator Ojai, CA
    Posts: 613
    why do you want to debate it so badly, we all get it you don't like roger moore lets move on.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    I agree! back to YOLT vs. DAF!
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    bondjames wrote: »
    @doubleohdad is actually helping me to refine my arguments for why Moore was an excellent Bond. The clips he posted on the hating thread made me realize just how good Moore was.

    Back on topic, I think DAF is very much like a Moore Bond film. That to me suggests that the producers had already made up their mind to go in a slightly more comedic direction prior to Moore's involvement with the franchise. Therefore, he is not to blame for the direction that the movies took in the 70's. They also happened to play to his strengths and sensibilities, but he cannot be blamed for that - I think that's just a coincidence - and what the public wanted at the time. Times have changed now and a Moore Bond would not cut it today. I'm glad we had him when we did. He was a great Bond. As was Connery in DAF (if not quite up to his best).

    I believe the moment audiences roared with laughter when the man flipped out of the roof of the Aston Martin in Goldfinger that the writing was well and truly on the wall. It was the turning point when Eon new what the winning formula was. The 70s was always going to be about big stunts and big laughs whoever played Bond.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    In the 70s there were mainly two types of movie.
    Extreme violent thrillers or easy going comedies
    I.e. Deliverance v Smokie and the Bandit.
    So I give the producers credit for steering the Bond
    Ship forward to even greater success. If they took
    The advice of many of us fans, the films would have
    Crashed and burned long ago. :))
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    NicNac wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @doubleohdad is actually helping me to refine my arguments for why Moore was an excellent Bond. The clips he posted on the hating thread made me realize just how good Moore was.

    Back on topic, I think DAF is very much like a Moore Bond film. That to me suggests that the producers had already made up their mind to go in a slightly more comedic direction prior to Moore's involvement with the franchise. Therefore, he is not to blame for the direction that the movies took in the 70's. They also happened to play to his strengths and sensibilities, but he cannot be blamed for that - I think that's just a coincidence - and what the public wanted at the time. Times have changed now and a Moore Bond would not cut it today. I'm glad we had him when we did. He was a great Bond. As was Connery in DAF (if not quite up to his best).

    I believe the moment audiences roared with laughter when the man flipped out of the roof of the Aston Martin in Goldfinger that the writing was well and truly on the wall. It was the turning point when Eon new what the winning formula was. The 70s was always going to be about big stunts and big laughs whoever played Bond.

    Beautifully stated as ever @NicNac, the films often reflect the period of time to which they come. The early Connery films were fresh and new. Majesty's suffered at the time due to a change in world affairs, the hippy , free love Easy Rider of the late 60's. As well as following on from a worldwide phenomenon in Connery. And some unfair press too boot.
    By the time of Roger Moore and the 70's, it was big stunts (and nobody at the time did them bigger than Bond) a few laughs along the way. Films like Smokey & the bandit were doing well in theatres. EON merely took the Bond formula and churned out new movies every two years with from 1971 to 1985 established and popular actors in the lead role. It was simple. The general moviegoer lapped it up and with no internet, the complaints were not as frequent, or pretty much fell on deaf ears. (To be honest, they still do.)

  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    Benny wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @doubleohdad is actually helping me to refine my arguments for why Moore was an excellent Bond. The clips he posted on the hating thread made me realize just how good Moore was.

    Back on topic, I think DAF is very much like a Moore Bond film. That to me suggests that the producers had already made up their mind to go in a slightly more comedic direction prior to Moore's involvement with the franchise. Therefore, he is not to blame for the direction that the movies took in the 70's. They also happened to play to his strengths and sensibilities, but he cannot be blamed for that - I think that's just a coincidence - and what the public wanted at the time. Times have changed now and a Moore Bond would not cut it today. I'm glad we had him when we did. He was a great Bond. As was Connery in DAF (if not quite up to his best).

    I believe the moment audiences roared with laughter when the man flipped out of the roof of the Aston Martin in Goldfinger that the writing was well and truly on the wall. It was the turning point when Eon new what the winning formula was. The 70s was always going to be about big stunts and big laughs whoever played Bond.

    Beautifully stated as ever @NicNac, the films often reflect the period of time to which they come. The early Connery films were fresh and new. Majesty's suffered at the time due to a change in world affairs, the hippy , free love Easy Rider of the late 60's. As well as following on from a worldwide phenomenon in Connery. And some unfair press too boot.
    By the time of Roger Moore and the 70's, it was big stunts (and nobody at the time did them bigger than Bond) a few laughs along the way. Films like Smokey & the bandit were doing well in theatres. EON merely took the Bond formula and churned out new movies every two years with from 1971 to 1985 established and popular actors in the lead role. It was simple. The general moviegoer lapped it up and with no internet, the complaints were not as frequent, or pretty much fell on deaf ears. (To be honest, they still do.)

    EON basically took a formula a ruined, for a time, a perfectly good franchise, the best in its genre being espionage, by employing a comedian to play the lead role. Seriously, Niven would have been a better and funnier choice.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Back to the Moore bashing, 8-|
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    Well then rather than blame the lead, you should focus your attention on Cubby and Harry for hiring a very popular actor to play the part of an English spy. Despite being pressured by studio execs to have Bond be played by Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood to name a few. Yep, how foolish of them to stand their ground and have an Englishman who was popular in the UK, US and across the globe take on the part of Bond.
    How dare they.
    I for one believe they made an excellent choice, with a wonderful Bond from 1973 -1985.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Benny wrote: »
    Well then rather than blame the lead, you should focus your attention on Cubby and Harry for hiring a very popular actor to play the part of an English spy. Despite being pressured by studio execs to have Bond be played by Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood to name a few. Yep, how foolish of them to stand their ground and have an Englishman who was popular in the UK, US and across the globe take on the part of Bond.
    How dare they.
    I for one believe they made an excellent choice, with a wonderful Bond from 1973 -1985.
    Quite so out of the hundreds of great actors that they could have hired, they went for a complete dud. I do indeed blame Cubby and Harry, as well as Laz's agent who is as much to blame for the Rog fiasco.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    I'd love to see who these hundreds of actors are. Especially to have the same appeal of Roger Moore.
    YOLT is leaps and bounds above DAF. YOLT contains iconic moments, is an enjoyable adventure, and still has James Bond.
    DAF is the biggest mess in the series. It's got Sean Connery so it must be good...maybe not.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Benny wrote: »
    I'd love to see who these hundreds of actors are. Especially to have the same appeal of Roger Moore.

    Very easy, every single actor in the 70s and 80s.
  • MartinAstonMartinAston
    Posts: 238
    Benny wrote: »
    I'd love to see who these hundreds of actors are. Especially to have the same appeal of Roger Moore.

    Very easy, every single actor in the 70s and 80s.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I think this thread is going off topic a little too much. Anyone have anything to add to the YOLT v DAF debate? I'll give it another 24 hours and if it's still a Moore bashing thread by then we can close it.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    You only live twice has the best score. It has Japan. It has Nancy Sinatra. Diamonds? It has Vegas. Crispin glovers dad...yeah, you only live twice for the win;)
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    Benny wrote: »
    Well then rather than blame the lead, you should focus your attention on Cubby and Harry for hiring a very popular actor to play the part of an English spy. Despite being pressured by studio execs to have Bond be played by Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood to name a few. Yep, how foolish of them to stand their ground and have an Englishman who was popular in the UK, US and across the globe take on the part of Bond.
    How dare they.
    I for one believe they made an excellent choice, with a wonderful Bond from 1973 -1985.

    Quoted for truth!
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,146
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    You only live twice has the best score. It has Japan. It has Nancy Sinatra. Diamonds? It has Vegas. Crispin glovers dad...yeah, you only live twice for the win;)

    Especially the main theme, it's really beautiful. Though DAF is also another solid piece of Barry stuffs, it's not as lush as YOLT.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    @Birdleson - Obviously we disagree (slightly) on Diamonds but I agree with you on You Only Live Twice. Spectacle matched by Young's fantastic cinematography and John Barry's magnificent score.
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,596
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @ThighsOfXenia , I agree with what you wrote about the dialogue in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, it is share, witty and smart. That was pretty much the end of that level of writing quality in Bond films. From her fit deteriorated into any sexual innuendo that the writers could think of, whether it was clever, subtle or not. Afterwards, the puns, quips, etc, become strictly juvenile. That is until the Craig era (and there also seemed to be a respite from the embarrassingly sophomoric lines in the Dalton films).

    Yeah, almost all of the quips from the Brosnan era (although I do enjoy the films, particularly the first two) are extremely juvenile.

    Thankfully Skyfall brought back some of the old levity and realized that, like the early Bond films, it didn't require sacrificing wit.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Daniel Craig had some great lines in SF.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    Yeah, almost all of the quips from the Brosnan era are extremely juvenile.
    Ha ha, been a while since you've seen the Connery films, eh?
    :))
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,596
    chrisisall wrote: »
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    Yeah, almost all of the quips from the Brosnan era are extremely juvenile.
    Ha ha, been a while since you've seen the Connery films, eh?
    :))

    I understand the point you're trying to make and I disagree. The Connery films are full of witty one-liners and quips in my opinion. Brosnan gets a few good lines but more often than not his era suffers the most from poor dialogue writing.

    Give me "No... I know a little about women" over "Yeah I think I got the... thrust of it" any day of the week.

    Or "That's a nice little nothing you're almost wearing." There isn't a single line in the entire Brosnan era as good as that.

    EDIT: And you know I'm a Brosnan fan, one of the defenders on here. Hell, look at my username. But I still recognize shortcoming when I see it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm in complete agreement. The difference is subtle, but one is classic and the other is pastiche. It's not about the actor, although nobody delivers them like Connery, except maybe Moore IMO. It's about the quality of the lines themselves.

    My favourite is "I'm Plenty. Plenty O'Toole".........Named after your father perhaps?"
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,596
    @Birdleson Yeah of course there are a few exceptions (not many). For the Brosnan era the good one-liners were the exceptions.

    Even though I like Brosnan as Bond I also think something can be said for Connery's deliver. He makes "Named after your father" sound classier than it is.

    Nice to see we're in agreement on this though. The way I see it the early films are full of witty writing instead of shoe-horned innuendos.

    EDIT: @bondjames I think maybe you're right. But I would replace "classic" with smart and "pastiche" with pre-pubescent parody. :P
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    "My name is Pussy Galore." "I must be dreaming."
    "You're a woman of many parts, Pussy!"
    "Well, I'm afraid you've caught me with more than my hands up."
    "Thank you, but I think my mouth is too big." "No, it's the right size... for me, that is."

    Okay, TND keeps 'em coming, but really, the bar had been set & it *had* to be exceeded by someone. Some in the Moore years were the worst, btw.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Happily, I love them all. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.