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
Lazenby on the other hand just wasn't very good on a pure talent level.
That's pretty much how I see Connery: he was the best Bond in his first four films, bit the worst Bond in DAF. I would also say that he was in DAF the worst looking Bond.
You might be right; I thought I remembered him being fairly chummy with Pleydell Smith, but I could be misremembering things.
Maybe I’m just abrasive. :))
Seagal needs to be in Bond films, not Bollywood films.
"I will snatch every motherfornicator martini."
And every time a new Bond film premieres (forget Leicester Square, it'll be Red Square), he'll bust some moves on stage to hype the crowd.
You have to hand it to him, he moves good for a 90 year old.
I suppose he's pretty much in 'detective' mode for most of that film, so it makes sense he comes off as more cold. DN is a good film - one I like rewatching at least - but Bond really doesn't have all that much depth to him in that particular instalment. Heck, in FRWL there's at least that 'cat and mouse' element in which Bond doesn't know what to expect, not to mention him having to process the death of Kerim Bay, so I can see why people would say Connery comes off as more relatable in that adventure.
I think there's no room for improvement on Connery, he cemented that style the way he did.
Meanwhile, it's Lazenby and to the lesser extent, Dalton who are needed some improvements as they didn't cemented their status on the role.
I kinda see Lazenby's acting natural or organic, not too polished, it's raw, and I believe there's a room for improvement had he done more.
That's said acting skills wise, there's a potential but left hinged (if you know what I mean), he could have been much better had he done more.
His 70's Asian Films like The Man From Hong Kong showcased him with his fully fledged acting, and it's a shame he didn't done more (he's great in that said film, by the way).
I'm not totally knocking on Moore, he's a great actor, but he veered Bond far away from how he's supposed to be, and what he should be, and he played the character no different from his past portrayals.
I really wished Lazenby done a lot more (specifically continuing through 70's, he could be successful granted that he could also incorporate some of Connery's manners), then Dalton to take over in the 80's.
Well Quarrel dies, in a way that Bond seems very much responsible for, and he doesn’t appear to give a toss.
I disagree to an extent, but I can definitely see where you're coming from. Personally I'd say it's Connery's acting that gives me the sense that Bond is remorseful over Quarrel's death, and the film itself doesn't do much to help the moment. Connery's expressions, his body language as he tries to walk towards Quarrel's body, did that for me anyway.
I don't know whether they wanted to keep the film tight so took out the part in the novel where Bond says to the goons "I'm going to look at the body of the man you killed" and actually goes to Quarrel's body. The way the scene is played out is a bit lacklustre - there's no music, the editing doesn't quite pace out Connery's performance as effectively as it could do, and the lighting is a wee bit too dark. Perhaps the idea of Bond going to the body was deemed a bit gruesome, even if much is left to the imagination. Still, I think that moment could have had a bit more pathos to it, but I believe the fault is more with the direction (DN isn't the best Bond film in regards to filmmaking in this sense, enjoyable as it is).
And I believe it was popular because people didn't take it seriously! I'm sure I've heard reports that the makers were surprised that audiences were laughing in the cinemas, so Young perhaps got it a bit wrong :)
From there on it became a little more tongue-in-cheek (Blofeld in FRWL is fairly silly) and self-aware, and it didn't look back.
I'm not a massive fan of Dr No and haven't watched it much. It's an important film obviously and I don't think they did a bad job or anything, I just prefer where the series went after that.
Yeah, I see your point...and for sure, DN is such an important Bond film. Of course, the films that followed were undoubtedly better. But one could say DN was almost the perfect way to launch the franchise.
Also interesting how much influence it may have had over the tone/impression of NTTD, since they harkened back to it so much in the styling and marketing. NTTD is perhaps the coldest Bond film, despite trying to be the warmest.
Edit: sorry to go off topic a bit. Connery is great. We'll never have another. I would wager Connery is one "Great" Bond for me, and all the rest rank just below. Roger comes close on icon status, I'd wager he made an impression on just as many people as Connery in his time. I respect both over all the others, but each has a lot to appreciate and offer. I hope the next Bond is dramatically different in an intriguing way, just so they bring their own new thing to the table.
Honestly, the guy's a great and unique actor. His performance in The Batman is actually very subtle and well crafted rewatching that film. I'd love to have seen his version of Bond, but obviously it's not to be.
There's zero guarantee they'll do the next Batman. There's zero guarantee the Bond producers planned hiatus is only two years.... I wouldn't write him off.
There's more than zero guarantee. Pattinson's committed to another: https://www.nme.com/features/film-features/the-batman-2-release-date-cast-plot-trailer-3341153
I suppose with a release date three years away it's possible, but I think he's too famous to fit the precedent of Bond actors, and he'll be in a competing franchise which is a no-no. Oh well, at least we have a great Batman.
I say zero guarantee about the next Batman because the studio just shelved an entire Batgirl movie and hired James Gunn to head up its DC division, who may not like Pattinson's Batman regardless of any pre-existing contracts. But you're right, I don't have high hopes for Pattison's Bond odds given everything.
I think it's too much of a likely moneymaker and critical hit to shelve, going from the success of the last one. Even if James Gunn doesn't like The Batman - which we don't know - I don't think he'd pass on any more Reeves/Pattinson films. Those who hired him certainly wouldn't.
Batgirl was a funny situation, but I don't think it's applicable to this Batman sequel. If anything DC are now prioritising, as they said, 'big theatrical event' films for cinemas, and a future Batman I think fits this criteria.
Yeah, we hope Bond 7 brings something unique to the table. Maybe Bond 7 should have an Achilles' heel....like battling alcoholism, but still succeeds in having successful missions? I don't know. Lots of other better and unique ways...I'm sure.
You could have a Bond who starts out more hedonistic - drinking a bit too much, gambling all night, taking risks when he's in the field and paying for it with the scars on his body, but essentially prone to boredom and dissatified. Think Fleming's Bond at the start of TB - still a reliable agent, often humorous, but his lifestyle is ultimately to his detriment. You could have a little arc where throughout the film Bond takes what are essentially rather arrogant risks, maybe using gadgets too much, and this leads to him getting captured at the end by the villain. He then has to use his wits, not relying on gadgets and rash decisions, to save the day. By the end he comes out a more experienced and world weary agent.
Yeah. I imagined this. A Bond consumed by hedonism could work, since Craig's Bond finished as a family man Bond.
Yeah, that's an interesting way of putting it. I mean, we've seen a self-destructive and vulnerable Bond in SF who drinks too much, but in that he's older, more cynical and compromised physically. It'd be interesting to see a Bond who does get scars on his body, indulges more than he should and even fails who's younger, at his peak physically, and more idealistic. So it'd be a story about James Bond learning to become 007 (or at least more simply a better agent).
It'd certainly be a contrast compared to where Craig's Bond ended. And in-keeping broadly with aspects of Fleming's Bond while giving the character more of an arc in a future story. With a younger actor too they could really lean into it.
It makes sense to do it the other way around to Craig: start with him as the fully fledged cinematic Bond and then show how that doesn't work out, and make him something slightly new. Kill Moneypenny or something, go for it.
Lol, not gonna lie I forgot which thread I was in. It makes sense to go that opposite but different route with the next Bond though. I'll come up with other ideas and pop it in that thread at some point.