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
No way to know, but I doubt they will go "the Moore way" with Craig. My bet is the films will remain serious, but with some humour.
I (and many) talk about how Sean's films had some Fleming too. Sean's films can be very dark as well.
I think what, and I'll say "we" but others may not agree, think of when "we" say Daltz and Craig are closest to Fleming, is that they are not so much similar in tone, but in character. I think Connery's films captured the escapist Fleming to near perfection (until you get to YOLT), but you didn't get a great look at Connery's Bond character. He had a great screen presence, you recognized his character and he was consistent, but the character was only great because of the stories he was set in.
The novels have a vain of dark thoughts that run through them; Bond is at times a very depressed and dark character in the parts of the novels where Fleming really explores his character. That's something you don't see in Connery's films, but do with Craig and Daltz. I think Craig's and Dalt'z films capture a 'modern' escapist, inspired by Fleming, but of course updated to be relevant.
So what most people mean when they say the modern Bond's capture the book Bond better, they mean they capture the internal conflict and attitude of the character, but not so much the stories as a whole.
That's what I'm saying - that the Connery Bonds seem to me to be very close in spirit to the books. I wouldn't personally describe the Connery era as particularly 'dark' but that's your view. What I don't understand is why some see Craig as closer to Fleming. Obviously I need to read more but for me MR just 'felt' like the Connery era films. I guess the period feel is a large part of that though.
The only thing 'dark' about the books is Bond's character, which wasn't explored in Connery's run (and didn't need to be) but works well with Dalton and Craig.
Moonraker does feel a lot like a Connery film, but in that novel the darkest moment Fleming describes is probably Bond's embrace of death
Not really one of the more personal exploration of Bond in the novels.
You should, they're all quite enjoyable. I've been reading them in order, just finished Diamonds Are Forever (easily the weakest one so far). They're are obvious dark moments where Bond's character is really explored in Casino Royale and Live And Let Die (these moments have been explored in Craig's CR and Dalton's LTK).
I think Moonraker happens to be my favorite so far, though, because it is essentially a Bond story at it's best.
M also has quite a big part in the third section of the OHMSS book.
Probably the wisest thing you've ever said sir. If you want to understand the character of Bond read the last chapter of MR.
The more I think about it the more I think Connery never comes near capturing the essence of Bond. Yes he's good in the professor Dent scene and on the train but even as early as GF he's just playing Connery. There's never a hint of the conflict and sadness you get in that closing section of MR.
TD and DC come way closer to capturing this aspect than Connery ever does. He just benefits from having an untapped well of Fleming to work with. Give Sean Brozzas scripts and Tim or Dan DN to TB would Connery really be the undisputed number one in everybody's eyes?
That's why I've got a new respect for the PTS of CR. It's nasty (the fight reminded me of Bonds scuffle with Krebbs in MR and also the bit when he kills the guard after pouncing on him in the OHMSS book) and Craig is visibly shaken.
The closest Dalton came to that was at the end of LTK. Craig takes it a step further though by showing Bonds more ruthless, "cold" side in the sane scene when we are barely five minutes into the film.
Brosnan was cheesy but even he had some nice similar "emotional" moments. I like in GE for instance when he looks down from the antenna after dropping Alec as if to say "that was difficult but it's done".
I think for many people, yes, he would still be number one.
When it comes to the films the general audiences want a "movie star" Bond. Connery's presence and charisma cemented his status as an icon, not the quality of scripts he was given nor the nuance of his performance. Had Connery not played the role the way he did neither he nor the character of Bond would have been as popular.
Now, as for the people here - oh, I'm sure that some would change their minds. Connery was always for me the undisputed King, but the more I see of Craig I could see him surpassing Connery in my opinion at some point, especially if his batting average of excellent performances goes beyond Connery's. To be fair when I think of Connery as my favourite Bond I always think of his first four films; I can see how thinking of YOLT and DAF lessens the overall opinion of him for some people.
Audiences like Bond saying stuff like that and I don't know if DC or TD would make it work as well.
http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/kingsley-amis-draxs-gambit-and-reform.html
Goldfinger: The level of nonsense in having a whole town pretend to be knocked out (the logistics in such a short time frame is laughable to me) puts me off tremendously; it's not enough to make me hate the flick, but certainly enough to limit my re-watch frequency.
You Only Live Twice: Turning Japanese, I think he's turning Japanese, don't really think so. That and the landing large spacecrafts undetected thing made Austin Powers possible, IMO. Nearly unwatchable.
Diamonds Are Forever: The whole tone of the movie bothers me just a bit, but the 'moonwalk dudes' attempting to catch 007 in faux slow motion is a particular offense to my eyes. I can watch it, but not too often (or sober).
Live And Let Die: As really good as this movie is, Rosey's existence and Kananga's death both entirely kill this entry for me.
The Man With The Golden Gun: Slide whistle... I can deal with it.
The Spy Who Loved Me: The Jaws character rubs me entirely the wrong way, but the film still sort of works for me on a totally comic book level... usually. Reading Christopher Wood's novelization & keeping it in mind helps.
Moonraker: Whatever lattitude I grant to the former film is gone here. The second half of the movie is just a build up to frustration detonation, and then, "Here's to us" BOOM. Absolutely unwatchable.
For Your Eyes Only: A delicatessen in stainless steel? Bibi? Thatcher talking to a parrot?? I might be able to deal except for the 80's DISCO SCORE!! Unwatchable.
Octopussy: Playing the Bond theme for Bond was stupid, the Tarzan yell was an idiotic addition, but the rest of the movie worked so well (in admittedly uneven waves of comic book & serious espionage swells) I can deal.
Die Another Day: A perfectly invisible car. REALLY? A Robo-Gustav? SERIOUSLY?? Throw in crap CGI & Halle Berry's not-nearly-as-good-as-Catwoman performance, and you get... unwatchable. #-o
That would be a mostly definite no.
I seriously doubt it! His return in MR was already a disaster (Hello Dolly!).
@chrisisall interesting post, I don't agree with everything but most of it mirrors my feelings towards some of the entries. To me the only almost unwatchable films are MR and DAD, the latter worst than the former in my opinion.
You've no interest in buying the Blu-Ray boxset then? It probably costs less than buying the ones you like individually. Or would owning MR be like a constant elephant in the room. A Bondian poltergeist.
For now. ;)
MR would not be allowed to exist in my home in any form, though.
That is pretty much how I feel about Connery: he is the best partially because the first four Bond movies are for me the core Bond movies, in quality and as icons. But it is because I don't count his last two (or three counting the dreadful NSNA). Similarly, Christian Bale is the best actor to play Batman, even they were suddenly asking him to play in a Batman directed by Schumacher. Not that it will happen, but still.
I assume you'd be horrified that that this original poster sits atop my fireplace?
L-) What Sandy said!
I'm a Fleming fan but you have to lead a pretty miserable existence not to be able to enjoy MR. Top notch epic entertainment. Open a bag of popcorn, crank up the speakers and sit back and enjoy a nice thick slice of Rog at the top of his game on your plasma in luscious Bluray.
Lovely stuff.
That's a great alternative poster. All mine are the classic original posters you see in Sir Rog's last book, in this case mine is the blue one with Rog in the space suit leaving Earth's orbit.
Have to agree. I do sometimes wonder why those who cringe at Rog are Bond movie fans at all. The cheese and humour originates in the Connery era and Rog just layed it on that much thicker.
I'm all for a bit of seriousness and realism in Bond but the irony for me is that this is something Moore did so well. He transitions from comedy to high tension seamlessly. He defines (a certain type) of Bond and without him and his movies Bond would never have survived.
Personally I still actually enjoy Roger's performances almost more than any others. At his best he's unbeatable and even his weaker films have many enjoyable moments. It was a golden age.