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
And yes, TND has aged much better then GE. TND is the Brosnan film that best captures the style of the 90s. GE feels very late 80s IMO.
I have read the books and I acknowledge that the "he disagreed with something that ate him" came from LALD as did some of the stuff in the aquerium. Those are probably the strongest parts of the film.
Would you put LTK above Skyfall @Getafix?
You must tell me what tv movies you've seen, as I have seen my share of tv movies and I have yet to see one that LTK even remotely resembles. LTK does lack that classy feel ofTLD, but that's what I like about it. If nothing else, it makes it different to TLD.
GE has to be the most drab looking of the Brosnan era, even the lead girl is made to look dowdy for most of the film.
I've seen a few fair few TV shows/movies. I said above that oddly Murder She Wrote came to mind in some of the early scenes.
I think thats my issue with it - it doesn't have that "classy" feel to it. That's why I prefer TLD. Bond SHOULD look classy!
I think so yes. Mainly because I prefer Dalton to Craig, but I also think it's a better story. Some of the action scenes are better/more memorable as well. The daft escape by waterskiing behind the plane is on one level utterly ridiculous and yet I can't help loving it. For me, that's one thing that makes me feel it is still in the classic Bond era. Despite the serious tone, there's still an underlying vibe of enjoyment and the Q scenes are of course to be cherished.
Am I right in thinking Desmond rated Tim most highly of all the actors he worked with?
Bang on. The PTS opening is so cinematic as is Sanchez's escape from the armoured truck afterwards. LTK looks Bondy and has elements from the novels as well as previous cinematic decades.
And the film captures the espionage and intrigue elements of Fleming. As for how Bond is dressed, he is in Fleming's books a man of modest means and gets a civil service salary which does not make him rich. Dalton is dressed for the fashion of the time which was casual.
Craig too wears the tie less open shirt with a jacket. But the actor is what makes Bond, Bond. The clothes alone do not make Bond otherwise any male model could play him.
Oh and the scene when Dalton grabs Lupe and says : "Make a sound and you're dead!" is so chilling. He looks like he will kill. It's all in the face. That is the true Bond.
Oh the Q scenes now that Desmond R.I.P is gone have shot up the movies value to any classic Bond lover. It is wonderful how they wrote Q and the comedy is killer. "I hope you don't snore Q!?" is Dalton saying in a voice that also betrays sexual frustration because Pam say "Sweet Dreams Mr Bond!".
LTK reminds me more of the earlier Bond style than the newer films. It has the thread of Cubby's production and approval. That will do me.
Desmond did say Dalton was the closest to Fleming's Bond. He actually said "He was Fleming's Bond!". He loved working with him too.
And Desmond said the portrayal Dalton gave is what you would expect from "a highly trained actor".
Bond should look classy but the story is a revenge film which means a change of course for the series for the first time ever. The casino was a brilliant set by Peter Lamont. It looks expensive and I sure would like to go to a place like that. It is a nod that despite the film being a dark thriller, Bond revels in the finer things in life when he has the chance.
But LTK looks way better for it's measly budget than TWINE. DAD looks expensive but so does XXX. I think they inadvertently tried to get the XXX crowd to go see Bond because it was a dumbed down movie and Moonraker is class in comparisson.
Maibaum actually had little to do with the script as there was a writers strike when filming began. Michael Wilson along with John Glen had to finish working on it.
But I do not think Dalton would have gone too far into revealing how Bond ticks underneath. It was more in how he portrayed the character in the scene emotionally.
He said he wanted to go back to a more TLD meets old Bond style in his third. And having seen him in stuff like Hot Fuzz as well as Framed, I believe every word from that man. He always delivered on his intentions.
I didn't know about Glen and Dalton finishing the script! Sounds like QoS all over again. May be it's the way to go! I actually don't think QoS is all that bad. Infact, it's my favourite post-Dalton Bond movie.
I've seen interviews with Dalts talking about number 3 and he seems very determined to do something a bit more lighthearted. Such a crying shame we never got another.
QOS is similarly perceived as LTK just that the budget of QOS was double that of CR.
Wilson and Glen finished the script in Miabaum's absence and the film would have had a different feel with Maibaum's full involvement.
Now those who say Dalton would have sunk the franchise with a third forget that the franchise almost destroyed itself with it's success in the Brosnan era. It got drunk on it's own wine of self-congratulation.
Dalton was secure in the part and do I wish the hiatus came after TWINE. I am sure Brosnan would too looking back. You still would have had Brosnan anyway.
How many turkey films are super financially successful but weaken with every passing year.
Because afterwards Bond needed a complete redesign like the last few never happened. Had DAD been a strong intelligent entry, a reboot would not have been needed. They could have worked in CR with a new actor later and just slightly adapt the novel. Since when has a Bond film been strictly like the books?
I disagree. Like it or not, we're living in the age of the reboots. Look at Spiderman--they felt the need to have two origin stories in like ten years just because they changed actors. Plus, with all the other origin movies floating around, I'm sure EON would have gone on the bandwagon and did the reboot when they recasted with Craig.
Very true. DAD feels like a very cynical movie - almost as if the producers felt you could put anything infront of the audience and they'd lap it up.
What makes me sad about SF is that obviously everyone involved has tried so hard. If feels like a film that people have really cared about, thought about and taken effort to craft. You can really feel the effort to make this like the old-school movies and yet it feels too try hardy. None of the effortless joy and fun of the old films is there. So it's disappointing but in a totally different way to DAD. Just my view any way. Looking forward to finally hearing your review when you go and see it.
No, EON are super cautious when it comes to Bond. I think the reboot was more for comic book films like Batman or Spiderman.
They needed the reboot to cast aside doubts that Bond had lost it. And also from reading a Craig interview, he said he would not have taken the role had he had to play a veteran Bond. He actually said he would not have been interested unless there was a from scratch approach.
I even posted that interview on this forum so it is a fact.
Barbara Broccoli being very keen on Craig and not wanting to lose him agreed.
It all makes sense. Craig was not interested in just being a follow on Bond straight away. And that makes sense as he was replacing a phenomenally popular actor in the role at the time. And he knew what happened with Dalton despite being a damn good actor.
I think Bond is so long in the tooth that the reboot was a bit of a sledge hammer to crack a walnut approach. Me, I prefer Bond as he knows what he is doing type straight away.
But if I was a new fan who knew little of the past, then the reboot is fine.
I think the reboot thing has gone too far these days. It is just as an excuse to rewrite the origin story of the character to justify the new approach.
I mean how many more times can Batman redo the origin story?
Well, you know more about EON than I do. However, as a casual fan, that's just how I saw it when it happened. So, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how other casual fans see it as well.
I was wondering that too since I don't think that'd be a good idea (of course I don't think the Spiderman reboot is good idea either). However, accoppola's post reassures me that EON wouldn't go there twice so soon.
Thanks @Marymoss I think this reboot is a one off and the Casino Royale novel helped it to succeed.
Back in 1986 there was an idea of launching a younger Bond as a reboot but Cubby said that Bond had to be a veteran.
Henry Cavill was 22 when they auditioned him for CR. But I think they quickly realised that you need a really experienced actor for the part and in came Craig. Bond is not an easy part to play especially in today's market. In fact at any time.
.....Looking back on all the actors that played the famous thrill seeking secret agent one finds that the role was mostly played with style & panache (with of course the notable exceptions of Sean "slap her" Connery & Timothy "Hamlet" Dalton- the misogynist Bonds), though none before have ever reached the pinnacle of Bondian and thespian success that Justin Bieber has in only two movies as the superspy! "I knew I could do it." said Beiber at today's opening of his latest 007 adventure, "Kill Another Week."
Hey who knows! It could happen with the way film studios are.:)
It was!! I cracked up... I just couldn't respond sooner :D (See, I'm at the office so posting here is tricky.)
Back to work @Regan :)) Though I don't blame you. It is has been a productive day for kissing Dalton's ass here on the forum. I hope you will see all the fruits of the labour.
Very true. DAD feels like a very cynical movie - almost as if the producers felt you could put anything infront of the audience and they'd lap it up.
What makes me sad about SF is that obviously everyone involved has tried so hard. If feels like a film that people have really cared about, thought about and taken effort to craft. You can really feel the effort to make this like the old-school movies and yet it feels too try hardy. None of the effortless joy and fun of the old films is there. So it's disappointing but in a totally different way to DAD. Just my view any way. Looking forward to finally hearing your review when you go and see it.
[/quote]
I really don't understand this reasoning. If a film tries something different it's accused of straying from the Bond formula, if a film tries to re-incorporate these elements (as SF did) its accused of "trying too hard".
I've seen SF for the third (yes third!) time today and I can confirm that it really is one of the best in the series. True it might drag a little times but it has the right qualities (wit, humour and...above all...style). At the moment I'm not sure whether its better than CR.
The friend who I saw it with today (who's read most of Fleming's books but has, up until this point, been cynical of Craig describing him as too "Harry Palmer-esque") actually really liked it and said he'd either give it an 8 or 9. He liked the "throwback" elements to old wartime spy flicks. Being a fan of poetry (I'm not) he also liked the Tennyson speech. He thought it was the best of the three Craig has done so far.
Yes, sir... *sheepishly reopens boring Excel report*
(very productive day indeed!)
Very true. DAD feels like a very cynical movie - almost as if the producers felt you could put anything infront of the audience and they'd lap it up.
What makes me sad about SF is that obviously everyone involved has tried so hard. If feels like a film that people have really cared about, thought about and taken effort to craft. You can really feel the effort to make this like the old-school movies and yet it feels too try hardy. None of the effortless joy and fun of the old films is there. So it's disappointing but in a totally different way to DAD. Just my view any way. Looking forward to finally hearing your review when you go and see it.
[/quote]
I really don't understand this reasoning. If a film tries something different it's accused of straying from the Bond formula, if a film tries to re-incorporate these elements (as SF did) its accused of "trying too hard".
I've seen SF for the third (yes third!) time today and I can confirm that it really is one of the best in the series. True it might drag a little times but it has the right qualities (wit, humour and...above all...style). At the moment I'm not sure whether its better than CR.
The friend who I saw it with today (who's read most of Fleming's books but has, up until this point, been cynical of Craig describing him as too "Harry Palmer-esque") actually really liked it and said he'd either give it an 8 or 9. He liked the "throwback" elements to old wartime spy flicks. Being a fan of poetry (I'm not) he also liked the Tennyson speech. He thought it was the best of the three Craig has done so far.[/quote]
Well, CR is much much better IMO. And I am not the worlds biggest CR fan.
Actually when I used to manage an office, I would always let the Dalton fans slack off at work. The Dalton haters would get treated harsher and carry the weight!
A Dalton fan would not be docked for being late. But a Dalton hater would get a hard time. ))
Hope your day gets better @Regan
lol, I'd be living the life, if you were managing my office... B-)
Thank you!