›

OHMSS a seemingly very popular film with fans but why?

1235»

Comments

  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    acoppola wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    identigraph wrote:
    As much as I like Dalton, I'm not sure I could agree that he made more of an impact in two films that Moore did in seven, people often blame Moore's style for Dalton not being accepted, so I guess like him or not, Moore must have left a pretty big mark for it to effect the perception of Dalton.

    Not to general audiences so much but in terms of fans of Fleming and the early spirit of Dr No. Moore's films though very good did not make Bond look like a serious character.

    But those who know how Bond should really be were more than satisfied with Dalton.

    But no question, in terms of populism and path of least resistance, Moore was the public favourite. It is only recently in light of Craig that Dalton gets the true accolades he should have got over 20 years ago.

    Why? Because the serious take is in fashion whilst the camp has been relegated to where it belongs as in the past.

    The same thing happened with Batman Returns. It was too dark and Warner Brothers made Batman Forever as an apology to the similar complaints LTK got. Goldeneye is the Batman Forever equivalent in Bond lore. It was a fine film but a blatant compromise. Vivid and colourful mostly and occasionally dark like the scenes where Bond meets Alec for the first time in years.

    But when you watch The Dark Knight, you have a serious smack in the face to familiarity. Batman is no longer this perfect hero who can save you so easily.

    I think SF is a bit of an apology for CR and QoS

    Indeed it is. Though SF is a departure from the way a traditional Bond film is structured.
    If I have one criticism of the reboot era is that they have changed directors in all three films. Each one looks stylistically different because how could they be the same when each director perceives the franchise differently.

    Where Warner Bros has been smarter with the Batman reboot is they left all three in the hands of Nolan. But if Nolan did the first and then someone else took over, then I do not think The Dark Knight would have had the same impact.

    Yes i would have loved an even trilogy to the same standard as CR.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,243
    craigrules wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    craigrules wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    identigraph wrote:
    As much as I like Dalton, I'm not sure I could agree that he made more of an impact in two films that Moore did in seven, people often blame Moore's style for Dalton not being accepted, so I guess like him or not, Moore must have left a pretty big mark for it to effect the perception of Dalton.

    Not to general audiences so much but in terms of fans of Fleming and the early spirit of Dr No. Moore's films though very good did not make Bond look like a serious character.

    But those who know how Bond should really be were more than satisfied with Dalton.

    But no question, in terms of populism and path of least resistance, Moore was the public favourite. It is only recently in light of Craig that Dalton gets the true accolades he should have got over 20 years ago.

    Why? Because the serious take is in fashion whilst the camp has been relegated to where it belongs as in the past.

    The same thing happened with Batman Returns. It was too dark and Warner Brothers made Batman Forever as an apology to the similar complaints LTK got. Goldeneye is the Batman Forever equivalent in Bond lore. It was a fine film but a blatant compromise. Vivid and colourful mostly and occasionally dark like the scenes where Bond meets Alec for the first time in years.

    But when you watch The Dark Knight, you have a serious smack in the face to familiarity. Batman is no longer this perfect hero who can save you so easily.

    I think SF is a bit of an apology for CR and QoS

    Indeed it is. Though SF is a departure from the way a traditional Bond film is structured.
    If I have one criticism of the reboot era is that they have changed directors in all three films. Each one looks stylistically different because how could they be the same when each director perceives the franchise differently.

    Where Warner Bros has been smarter with the Batman reboot is they left all three in the hands of Nolan. But if Nolan did the first and then someone else took over, then I do not think The Dark Knight would have had the same impact.

    Yes i would have loved an even trilogy to the same standard as CR.

    Considering that CR was to follow on in the next film, I have no idea why Campbell was not the director of it. I can only imagine Campbell was brought in to help Craig's acceptance in the role as he did do a fine job of getting Brosnan accepted. Plus he was seen as safe hands.

    But the Batman franchise went for the reboot with completely fresh everything. No baggage of the past whatsoever. The box office returns going way over the $1 billion mark with TDK and TDKR must have made Sony change strategy for the third Bond film of the Craig era.

    Because when you spend $200 million plus on a film, the return must be substantially greater than $600 million. Why? Because you need to make profit but also have enough money leftover for the budget of the next film.
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    Nolan is proof you do not have to lighter to make good box office.
  • emilymcpluggeremilymcplugger
    Posts: 13
    I think Rigg is brilliant and this helps the film considerably.

    Blofeld's scheme is understated excellence and Telly Savalas plays him better perhaps than Pleasance or Gray as he seems to rival Bond with a strange charisma/sex appeal.

    For all the problems with Lazenby he excels in the action sequences better than any actor other until Dalton and finally the ending is the best of all the Bond films.

    This is probably why it is a firm fan's favourite ...In my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.