›

keep the films serious and realistic.

135678

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited October 2011 Posts: 28,694

    Eh? That's assuming DAF follows directly on from OHMSS. In all likelihood, considering the opening setting (Japan), no recognition of Tracey's death, and the producer's response to OHMSS's relative lack of success - it doesn't. With one or two rare exceptions, plot continuity and Bond don't mix.
    You must be thinking of YOLT @Shark. DAF opens with Bond getting revenge on "Blofeld" for killing Tracy. It opens with Bond in an Egyptian facility, not Japan as when we first see Bond in YOLT.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 1,971
    Shark, quoting ZI, said:

    We have a very effete BLOFELD whose preening music hall, drag-queen confidence makes for a deliciously unnerving villain (and potentially the best attempt at showing BLOFELD the character’s psychosis and derangements).

    The best villains pose a threat to the hero and the audience. Whatever the merits of DAF, my guess is most fans don't appreciate the film for Gray's "music hall, drag queen confidence." When a car stunt is more memorable than the villain, that's a problem.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355

    Eh? That's assuming DAF follows directly on from OHMSS. In all likelihood, considering the opening setting (Japan), no recognition of Tracey's death, and the producer's response to OHMSS's relative lack of success - it doesn't. With one or two rare exceptions, plot continuity and Bond don't mix.
    You must be thinking of YOLT @Shark. DAF opens with Bond getting revenge on "Blofeld" for killing Tracy. It opens with Bond in an Egyptian facility, not Japan as when we first see Bond in YOLT.
    It seems to me too, Diamonds Are Forever forgets the previous film and follows You Only Live Twice. Tracy is not a part of the film as she didn't even happen. The very opening shot, Bond is in Japan.
  • SharkShark Banned
    edited October 2011 Posts: 348

    Eh? That's assuming DAF follows directly on from OHMSS. In all likelihood, considering the opening setting (Japan), no recognition of Tracey's death, and the producer's response to OHMSS's relative lack of success - it doesn't. With one or two rare exceptions, plot continuity and Bond don't mix.
    It opens with Bond in an Egyptian facility, not Japan as when we first see Bond in YOLT.
    X_X

    DAF opens in Japan with an oriental figure from John Barry in the style of his score for YOLT, a Japanese thug being thrown through a shōji, and no mention of Bond's dead wife.

    Why do fans keep deluding themselves?
  • SharkShark Banned
    Posts: 348
    Shark, quoting ZI, said:

    We have a very effete BLOFELD whose preening music hall, drag-queen confidence makes for a deliciously unnerving villain (and potentially the best attempt at showing BLOFELD the character’s psychosis and derangements).

    The best villains pose a threat to the hero and the audience.
    Blofeld does pose a threat - through Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Sexpionage
    I agree with most of your comments except the indictment on Lazenby and OHMSS.
    I hope you will go back and watch that movie. Lazenby gives a good performance 90% of the time. Tracy's death scene is very sad and moving, and his fight scenes were brutal. I daresay he could kick every Bond actors butt in a fight (except Connery)
    I prefer the more realistic movies: LTK, CR, FRWL.
    I consider Moonraker to be the worst of the franchise and I am not a fan of TSWLM either. It is considered Moore's best but I never liked that film. Too juvenile and silly (like Moonraker)
    Female agent named Triple X (kinda crap you saw in matt Helm's movies of the 60's)
    Jaws surviving things that would have maimed or killed anyone (kicked out of train, car crash, going over the falls, landing on a circus tent after parachute failed to open)

    You right, they did start to get over the top after Goldfinger. Thunderball is enjoyable but if you will go back and look at it the writing is not that good, and Bond just stumbles onto Specter's plan thru no real spy work of his own..Production team decided to make the gadgets and stunts the real stars here....

  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Sexpionage wrote:
    Moore is a nice guy, but his 007 tenure were a complete disgrace to the the books and to James bond. if I were Barbara broccoli I would remake all of the original book movies made by Moore with complete seriousness and realism in the timeline we live in now....

    also i wanted to mention , after goldfinger was released, Connery got out of shape and was losing his hair considerably, the films got way too unrealistic and idiotic...the James bond franchise needs to stay on the casino royale page...keep the films realistic, gritty, and true to Flemings true formula ...I absolutely despise all of u that think Roger Moore was the best bond, because he definitely was not. he was the worst. Pierce brosnan on the other hand was fed horrible scripts and the producers and directors made him play 007 more as a super-hero than a secret agent. Brosnan is a amazing character actor, he can really play a mean bastard and it kills me inside that EON and the directors did not take advantage of Brosnans grittyness and realism. I highly reccomend any bond fan to watch Brosnan's film "Seraphim Falls", the character he plays in this film is realistic and very bondian.

    best bonds -
    1. Connery ( DR.NO FRWL , GOLDFINGER ONLY)

    2. Daniel Craig, but bond 23 may make him no.1

    3. Brosnan-Dalton ..its a tie because both of these men were and still are great actors and both were unfairly treated with bad direction from directors and producers. Dalton and Brosnan could have been way more darker and realistically grittier but weren't given the creative green light to explore the character to its true depth.

    4. Lazenby - Moore - they both stunk, they're films were as laughable as DAD was.


    Wow I completely agree 100% . Sexpionage where have you been ? I wish you were stil active on the forums because you are absolutley correct
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited November 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @DRESSED_TO_KILL Yeah, you two have lots in common. You both want the same band to do a Bond theme, you both want ultra realistic films....

    I thought if somebody got banned aren't they meant to be banned again when they rejoined?
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Royale yes! That certainly does offer escapism. True Bond is more serious but it still feels like the audience is allowed to indulge - the whole train sequence for instance. All that stuff feels like it belongs in the Bond world. The casino's, the fancy dresses and perhaps most importantly the accessable nature of the film. It doesn't feel like its trying to be overly clever. I could happily watch Royale and have fun with it.

    Quantum, I'm not so sure about.

    CR is a dark film and the minor escapism is to relieve the tension. But it never lasts long. I mean the torture scene with Le Chiffre let's you know in no uncertain terms this is not a Roger Moore movie. The airport scene is not a fun romp like the boat chase in LALD. Bond is shown in CR to get little relaxation time.

    The glamour is there in CR but the hostility of atmosphere is where the glamour is contrasted against. You get a sense that Bond has it tough despite the exotic interiors of the casino.


    QOS is dark but lighter than CR. And QOS required plenty of thinking and it shows that being Bond is not a job many would like to do. When villains attack you, they mean you severe harm and Bond has to match up to that or be dead quick.



  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    @acoppola I agree with your above post.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    DRESSED_TO_KILL wrote:
    @acoppola I agree with your above post.

    Thanks

  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    DRESSED_TO_KILL wrote:
    Sexpionage wrote:
    Moore is a nice guy, but his 007 tenure were a complete disgrace to the the books and to James bond. if I were Barbara broccoli I would remake all of the original book movies made by Moore with complete seriousness and realism in the timeline we live in now....

    also i wanted to mention , after goldfinger was released, Connery got out of shape and was losing his hair considerably, the films got way too unrealistic and idiotic...the James bond franchise needs to stay on the casino royale page...keep the films realistic, gritty, and true to Flemings true formula ...I absolutely despise all of u that think Roger Moore was the best bond, because he definitely was not. he was the worst. Pierce brosnan on the other hand was fed horrible scripts and the producers and directors made him play 007 more as a super-hero than a secret agent. Brosnan is a amazing character actor, he can really play a mean bastard and it kills me inside that EON and the directors did not take advantage of Brosnans grittyness and realism. I highly reccomend any bond fan to watch Brosnan's film "Seraphim Falls", the character he plays in this film is realistic and very bondian.

    best bonds -
    1. Connery ( DR.NO FRWL , GOLDFINGER ONLY)

    2. Daniel Craig, but bond 23 may make him no.1

    3. Brosnan-Dalton ..its a tie because both of these men were and still are great actors and both were unfairly treated with bad direction from directors and producers. Dalton and Brosnan could have been way more darker and realistically grittier but weren't given the creative green light to explore the character to its true depth.

    4. Lazenby - Moore - they both stunk, they're films were as laughable as DAD was.


    Wow I completely agree 100% . Sexpionage where have you been ? I wish you were stil active on the forums because you are absolutley correct

    Anyone that would go as far as to say they would absolutely despise any of us that think Sir Rog is the best Bond should be simply ignored. Sir Rog is not my favourite but he is a great Bond in a more lighthearted fantasy interpretation of Bond. The Fleming Bond and the cinematic Bond don't have to be set in stone. The character should be allowed to have a variation of interpretation as long as the general essence of Bond remains.
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Would any of you 'serious and realistic' voters be open to a discussion about our good friend Ernst and his potential return to the series? Because I really think it could be done in a 'serious and realistic' way if they wrote the story wright. Any takers?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Blofeld was brilliant and realistic, until Charles Grey and DAF muffed that up.
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Would any of you 'serious and realistic' voters be open to a discussion about our good friend Ernst and his potential return to the series? Because I really think it could be done in a 'serious and realistic' way if they wrote the story wright. Any takers?
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Blofeld was brilliant and realistic, until Charles Grey and DAF muffed that up.

    True, DAF was the gateway to Austin Powers and Dr. Evil. That doesn't mean that they can't just re-imagine the whole character within the context of the modern re-boot era.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    True, DAF was the gateway to Austin Powers and Dr. Evil.
    Ummmm, YOLT was that particular gateway IMO.
    :))
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    "And to clarify, my proposed introduction for a new Bond film would only have Bond somewhat out of the story line for approx. 30 minutes, just to build tension and suspense, and convince the viewer there really is no hope. THEN have Bond swoop in. And even throughout those 30 minutes, you would see little clues of Bond."

    We had this in FRWL. PTS, "fake Bond" gets killed by Grant in PECTRE training exercise. Followed by outline of SPECTRE plan by Kronsteen to Blofeld and Klebb aboard yacht, Klebb choosing Grant for mission on SPECTRE island, Klebb recruiting Tatiana in Istanbul. It's a good 20 minutes before we see James Bond. And the film works perfectly!
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    I enjoy both the more serious and realistic Bond movies and the fantasy humourous Bond's. I guess the ultimate Bond for me would be one that is leaning more towards the serious and realistic but retains elements of fantasy and humour. At the end of the day we want to know we're watching Bond as opposed to a generic spy thriller.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,556
    I love Craig's tenure so far- I wouldn't change anything. I also quite enjoy DAD and MR, however I'd like to see a balance of serious realism and OTT fantasy- whether it's a mixture of both in one film, or one film is serious, then the next is more OTT etc. so there's some variety for everyone. Keep the spy thriller elements in there, where Bond has to actually investigate, put clues together, and Bond finds the answers at the same time the audience does. Every now and then Bond must get himself caught up in some dangerous predicament which sees him doing a stunt that transcends the abilities of the average person. This is Bond 101.

    FRWL, I class as my favourite- but in general I like more OTT scenes in my Bond films. FYEO- another excellent entry, has a bit of humour and a few far-fetched moments (namely the PTS), but for the most part is serious Bond. TB seems to be a little unrealistic in the sense that the film is full of coincidences, but it pretty much has the balance I want when it comes to the topic at hand. Concerning gadgets, and villain's plots involving space lasers etc.- well, although the technology in Bond only gets more plausible over time, I feel these things should be used sparingly, and focus on real world situations preferably.

    Just out of interest, I've made a list loosely rating the films from most serious/realistic to OTT/sci-fi fantasy. It may not be accurate, as I haven't watched them in a while:

    CR
    QOS
    FRWL
    FYEO
    TLD
    LTK
    OP
    AVTAK
    TWINE
    OHMSS
    TB
    NSNA
    TMWTGG
    GF
    DAF
    TND
    DN
    GE
    LALD
    YOLT
    TSWLM
    MR
    DAD

    SF (unrated, yet to see)
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    Blofeld was brilliant and realistic, until Charles Grey and DAF muffed that up.

    Pleasance's Blofeld was certainly iconic, but hardly plausible. All in my humble opinion, of course.

  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles
    Posts: 864
    Fleming's Bond. Dark, brooding, realistic. Especially when he's burying a worm-like, bald Chinese villain with pincers for arms under a couple of tons of bird poo. This after surviving a 100ft dive and battling a giant squid.

    In this context, are Moore's films really so ridiculous? Is Fleming's Bond really that serious?

  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,274
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Fleming's Bond. Dark, brooding, realistic. Especially when he's burying a worm-like, bald Chinese villain with pincers for arms under a couple of tons of bird poo. This after surviving a 100ft dive and battling a giant squid.

    In this context, are Moore's films really so ridiculous? Is Fleming's Bond really that serious?
    I couldn't care less for Fleming's Bond. I want A. Broccoli's ;-)

  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles
    Posts: 864
    Zekidk wrote:
    I couldn't care less for Fleming's Bond. I want A. Broccoli's ;-)

    I was really responding to the OP.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I want more Fleming's Bond. Not Die Another Day Bond. which was Practically "Batman & Robin 2": Revenge of the Solar Satellites.

    I don't know about anyone else. But I don't really want Bond to be fighting with armies to stop Blofeld type villains anymore. I want to see the Bond of the Books, Flemings vision. Craig's Bond is now Built. I'm excited to see what he does next, and maybe we can have a movie where Bond and Felix team up.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles
    Posts: 864
    Murdock wrote:
    I want more Fleming's Bond...But I don't really want Bond to be fighting with armies to stop Blofeld type villains anymore. I want to see the Bond of the Books, Flemings vision.

    Um, doesn't Fleming's Bond fight Blofeld?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I want more Fleming's Bond...But I don't really want Bond to be fighting with armies to stop Blofeld type villains anymore. I want to see the Bond of the Books, Flemings vision.

    Um, doesn't Fleming's Bond fight Blofeld?

    Yes, but most of the film versions of Blofeld don't really feel like the book version.

    I consider Blofeld in FRWL ,TB and OHMSS to be Flemings Blofeld, everyone else meh.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles
    Posts: 864
    Murdock wrote:
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I want more Fleming's Bond...But I don't really want Bond to be fighting with armies to stop Blofeld type villains anymore. I want to see the Bond of the Books, Flemings vision.

    Um, doesn't Fleming's Bond fight Blofeld?

    Yes, but most of the film versions of Blofeld don't really feel like the book version.

    I consider Blofeld in FRWL ,TB and OHMSS to be Flemings Blofeld, everyone else meh.

    Um, are we talking about Fleming's Blofeld from Thunderball, or his Blofeld from On Her Majesty's, or his Blofeld from You Only Live Twice? Because he seems to be a completely different character in each. The Blofeld in Fleming's TB is vastly different from the one in YOLT, for example.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2012 Posts: 16,351
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I want more Fleming's Bond...But I don't really want Bond to be fighting with armies to stop Blofeld type villains anymore. I want to see the Bond of the Books, Flemings vision.

    Um, doesn't Fleming's Bond fight Blofeld?

    Yes, but most of the film versions of Blofeld don't really feel like the book version.

    I consider Blofeld in FRWL ,TB and OHMSS to be Flemings Blofeld, everyone else meh.

    Um, are we talking about Fleming's Blofeld from Thunderball, or his Blofeld from On Her Majesty's, or his Blofeld from You Only Live Twice? Because he seems to be a completely different character in each. The Blofeld in Fleming's TB is vastly different from the one in YOLT, for example.

    I feel that the TB Novel Blofeld is the Blofeld seen in FRWL, TB and OHMSS. the calm collected Blofeld. I know he changes differently but the TB Novel Blofeld is who I see in the movies.

    Anyway...my point is. I don't want to see James Bond fighting the overused Megalomaniacs anymore.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    QBranch wrote:
    Just out of interest, I've made a list loosely rating the films from most serious/realistic to OTT/sci-fi fantasy.
    CR
    QOS
    FRWL
    FYEO
    TLD
    LTK
    OP
    AVTAK
    TWINE
    OHMSS
    TB
    NSNA
    TMWTGG
    GF
    DAF
    TND
    DN
    GE
    LALD
    YOLT
    TSWLM
    MR
    DAD
    Pretty good list, but I'd put DN & GE quite a bit higher up...

  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    The reason the series endured is because the tone changes frequently. some takes on bond we love some not so much, truth is if the tone had remained the same we would not be celebrating fifty years of bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.