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
I pretty much agree with this. But I also loved some of Roger's (TSWLM and FYEO) and I do love Craig in CR. I grew up in the 60's, so I have a long term perspective, too, guys.
In terms of making a dent in our culture, being a huge popular icon on the verge of a frenzy in some countries, then it was Sean in the 60's. But I feel to say the Golden Age was the 60's isn't accurate, not for me. Too many other gems in other years. Maybe no one perfect Golden Age.
True I suppose. I think you could maybe still count Moore though.
Strange that you grew up in the 60s yet you don't recognize the Bond Phenomenon that centered around Goldfinger and Thunderball? Almost everything was spy orientated in those days, and I mean everything. Maybe you were more interested in Thunderbirds and Batman whilst your classmates were into Bond and the whole thing just missed you by? I can't say anything in the 70s was better than what had gone before it, not even TSLM which even as a teenager I recognised as a blatant rip-off of YOLT and a hotchpotch of other better Bonds. Still enjoyed it though.
The 70s Bond was a downward slide by comparison to the dizzying heights of its early years. So much so that they had to lampoon the character in order to continue its survival, which was a shame if you were a Connery or Lazenby fan. It was a long wait but only Dalton offered us a glimpse of what we had been missing since the 60s though these 2 films were less than perfect and still didn't capture the lightening in the bottle moments of FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS.
But hey... each to their own.
On a good note: I much prefer the DC years to anything between 95 to 02. I call these the Bronze Age of Bond.
A good story is a good story, and the Bourne films just embarrass the last three Brosnan films. It's not even close, in my opinion.
Just compare that Tangiers sequence in the third film to Pierce's Tsunami-surfing. I don't know how anyone can say that those two moments don't define the difference between the two.
As a result, the last two Bonds have used those films as inpsiration quite effectively, and the tone of the Bonds changed, but I cringed through some of those Brosnans AFTER Goldeneye, and was impressed with the Bournes.
I'm looking forward to the new Bourne this weekend, but now that the Bonds have re-established themselves in action pieces that are more set in a grounded kind of grit, I enjoy them both, but for a while there was no comparison for me.
I think it's healthy for outside sources to influence the franchise.