Gotta say, the absurb comment seemed a bit OTT to me, I mean Fleming signed off on Connery before DN was even released! If people out there think Craig is the best Bond after one film, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. As Loeff says, anyone's cup if tea is simply their cup of tea (hyped up or not). Moore, Brosnan, Dalton, even Lazenby were all similarly touted after only one film by some, I'm sure (well, maybe not poor George...;) ). And amazingly enough, I'm also just as sure many of those initial impressions stuck.
How about a quick straw poll of "Brosnan is the best Bond" fans: were you convinced of that opinion upon seeing GE, or did you need a couple more films to warm up to him? Far from absurb, it's the nature of the beast to react that way (love at first sight, for lack of a better term, lol), IMHO. People like what they like and there's not a lot of rationality to it initially or even over time, be it Craig, Brosnan, Connery or whomever. Feelings can change, grow, mutate over time, sure, but that in no way negates that very important first impression IMO.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2006
I'm sure there was no shortage of people who thought Connery was 'The Man' after seeing DN...and I'd never say they were wrong...
No doubt Brozzer is The Man for many, and that's cool by me. There's a Bond for everyone.
The 'Moore' guys puzzle me, but I respect them... {:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I used to think that the best thing about Bond fans was that we weren't homogenous like the Star Trek or Star Wars people, that we had a wide diversity and defenders for every Bond and every installment in the series.
Now I just think we're a pain in the ass. )
Not in mine. B-) Here's to diversity {[]
For me, Connery is Bond 1.0; Craig is Bond 2.0...they're not alike, nor should they be: Connery's been done, after all---by Connery, and the others who followed.
I'm going to watch Craig develop, see where he (and the franchise) goes with the character, and I expect to have a whopping good time along the way. Vive le difference.
P.S. Yes, I really think CR is fun. :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Funny, when I think of Craig's Bond, brute force may be on the list but it's certainly not at the top. Cool definately is, just so many moments in CR that buttress that IMO. Much like with Connery, again IMO. Both are very Bond, and encompass a broad spectrum of Bondian qualities. In different measures, perhaps, but not so far apart in the end. IMO.
Just as an aside, I think two actors nailed "their" Bond at the first try: Lazenby and Craig. Connery took two (and a half maybe, depending on the day of the week with me , he does things in GF with the character that simply aren't there in his first two films IMO), Moore took three, Dalton dropped off the playing board before he had the chance (IMO), Brosnan took two (or never got it, whichever). Both Connery and Lazenby had the benefit of extremely good directors to start off with, Craig had a great script and Campbell at the top of his form.
Craig is second for me too. From the bottom - he's better than Dalton. I know that after the one film.
Hang on -- you can definitively place Craig second from bottom after one film, but anyone who places him at the top after the same one film is being premature and absurd? I'm lost...:s
Personally, I cannot yet place Craig. I do know I loved his film (more than Thunderball) but I want to see him again -- in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula" -- before I make a judgement. Gun to my head, I would slot him second, right behind Connery and ahead of Brosnan, but in general I find it hard to "rank the Bonds" when what I really feel like I'm doing is "ranking the set of films they were in".
Craig is second for me too. From the bottom - he's better than Dalton. I know that after the one film.
Hang on -- you can definitively place Craig second from bottom after one film, but anyone who places him at the top after the same one film is being premature and absurd? I'm lost...:s
That was the whole point, I was joking. Guess I shoulda' used a smilie.
If you look at other posts by me you'll see that I've said I hope that Craig will play a more traditional Bond in 22 and then I'll have a better idea, just like you said about having the formula back. I agree with you, I don't really like the comparing of Bond actors. It's kinda' pointless. As you say, each movie has its own specific Bond performance. And what's the poing of rating them anyway? We're all Bond fans and no matter who plays the part, we're there. It's Bond we're going to see, not the actor. Some we like better, but we can still enjoy the movies.
Sorry ben, I should have read more closely before posting. Even though we differ on CR, we agree on much more.
I'm sure there was no shortage of people who thought Connery was 'The Man' after seeing DN...and I'd never say they were wrong...
No doubt Brozzer is The Man for many, and that's cool by me. There's a Bond for everyone.
The 'Moore' guys puzzle me, but I respect them... {:)
What is it about me that puzzles you, Loeff's?
Does your high intellect struggle to cope with the intellectually challenged sub-species of Bond fan who favours Roger over all the others?
I am not in the least bit puzzled by anyone's choice regarding who their favourite or least favourite Bond actor is. Indeed, there is a Bond for everyone.
Personally, I cannot yet place Craig. I do know I loved his film (more than Thunderball) but I want to see him again -- in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula" -- before I make a judgement. Gun to my head, I would slot him second, right behind Connery and ahead of Brosnan, but in general I find it hard to "rank the Bonds" when what I really feel like I'm doing is "ranking the set of films they were in".
I also cannot (in fact will not) rank/place Daniel Craig yet. Not even with a gun to my head.
And I'm not certain he ever will star in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula". Judging by the general praise from the critics and the success of Casino Royale at the box office I anticipate Bond 22 will be more of the same.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Does your high intellect struggle to cope with the intellectually challenged sub-species of Bond fan who favours Roger over all the others?
Never thought about it that way, MNL, but I like the way you frame the issue B-)
More likely, I'm sure it's just the opposite: that I'm a bit dim, |) but I simply don't see how the Geriatric Bond satisfies. I'm among an admitted minority who prefer Moore's early-Bond stuff: LALD, TMWTGG and TSWLM (which I think would have been a superb swan song :v ). MR was SWLM on steroids, FYEO was originally written for a replacement actor (drats again! ), and I think both OP and AVTAK are best forgotten altogether.
But early on---Moore dashing across the crocodiles' backs, and the great boat chase of LALD...and MWTGG (which I enjoyed more than almost anyone here)---Moore was fine...he was never really Bond for me, just as I suspect Craig will never be Bond for benskelly and many others, but I'll always concede that he had his moments---before the age of FIFTY-ONE 8-) After that, IMRO they became increasingly scarce.
I respect Moore fans for defending him, despite double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and creaky-ancient Keystone Kops fire-engine-ladder gags, but I can't pretend to understand it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2006
I'll go along with you on FYEO; there was some very good Moore work in that one---and the Fleming stuff was quite refreshing after MR.
Can't forgive the Tarzan yell in OP, though
And I'll agree that Brosnan is a solid middle-ground between Moore and Craig---quite a chasm to cross, not for the faint-of-heart )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2006
The clown face-paint
They got my box office $$$, that'll have to do :v
I preferred NSNA that year. A superior geezer :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Salut {[]
[trundles off to bed]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Does your high intellect struggle to cope with the intellectually challenged sub-species of Bond fan who favours Roger over all the others?
Never thought about it that way, MNL, but I like the way you frame the issue B-)
More likely, I'm sure it's just the opposite: that I'm a bit dim, |) but I simply don't see how the Geriatric Bond satisfies. I'm among an admitted minority who prefer Moore's early-Bond stuff: LALD, TMWTGG and TSWLM (which I think would have been a superb swan song :v ). MR was SWLM on steroids, FYEO was originally written for a replacement actor (drats again! ), and I think both OP and AVTAK are best forgotten altogether.
But early on---Moore dashing across the crocodiles' backs, and the great boat chase of LALD...and MWTGG (which I enjoyed more than almost anyone here)---Moore was fine...he was never really Bond for me, just as I suspect Craig will never be Bond for benskelly and many others, but I'll always concede that he had his moments---before the age of FIFTY-ONE 8-) After that, IMRO they became increasingly scarce.
I respect Moore fans for defending him, despite double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and creaky-ancient Keystone Kops fire-engine-ladder gags, but I can't pretend to understand it.
If I was generalising, being as Roger Moore is your least favourite Bond. I would have said that you favour FYEO & TSWLM way ahead of his other films, they would likely be in your top ten overall. LALD & OP would be next, probably 10th to 15th overall. Then comes TMWTGG, MR & AVTAK and they would be rock bottom.
Generalising is pointless even though people do it all the time. You cannot legislate for personal taste. What a wonderful thing that is. Praise be we all don't agree on who is the best actor and what is the best film.
Glad to see you are a fan of TMWTGG. Welcome to the fan club, it's very exclusive......and very small.
I notice you didn't role your eyes at the 53 old geezer in NSNA. Regardless, age has not been an issue for me regards Bond except for in AVTAK. Roger signed up a full year before filming began unlike FYEO & OP where he signed almost at the last minute. Eon/Wilson/Maibaum knew they would have a 57 year old Bond. What to they do? They ignore that and have Bond 'bedding' four women, admittedly two of them are more for Queen & country, but that's no excuse. To make matters worse they employ stuntmen who if they resemble Bond in terms of looks and age it's purely co-incidental. To be fair though, the poor direction and editing is to blame if anything.
Shame, because Christopher Walken is great, Patrick Macnee is great, I really like the sequence at the pumping station and I love the ending on the Golden Gate Bridge. I also like the cinematography, title song and the score.
Hinsight is a wonderful thing, yes. Perhaps Roger should have known the time was right to quit after OP. He certainly did himself no favours by staying on for AVTAK, but then Eon/Wilson/Maibaum did him no favours either.
As for Sean Connery. In the first four films he's a great Bond full stop. His performances in those films are serious contenders for the top four by a Bond actor in the entire series. On the other hand, in his last three Bond films he's far from a great Bond, a pale imitation. His performances in those films are serious contenders for the bottom three by a Bond actor in the entire series. To be fair, I am not really critical of him in DAF because I tend to believe he adjusted his performance to suit the lighter tone of the film.
Overall, Sean's performances generally declined over time, if anything Roger's generally improved. FYEO & OP feature two of his best performances and they were his fifth and sixth Bond films. Roger was more consistent.
I will always defend Roger, but I will not defend the indefencible, e.g.double take pigeons, Tarzan yells, etc. A fraction in percentage terms, I look at the whole picture. Anyway, it's not like the silliness is the exclusive property of the Roger Moore era.
I also cannot (in fact will not) rank/place Daniel Craig yet. Not even with a gun to my head.
And I'm not certain he ever will star in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula". Judging by the general praise from the critics and the success of Casino Royale at the box office I anticipate Bond 22 will be more of the same.
I think you are absolutely right there MNL about B22 and beyond - it strikes me that a reboot would have been pointless if the ultimate aim was to return to the original 'formula'.
At the end of the day its already been proved that something broken can be fixed - after the lunacy of DAD we have CR which has been described anywhere between acceptable and outstanding by the majority - and if B22 is a disaster (not that I think it will be btw), something else can come after it which puts the train back on the rails again anyway
I also cannot (in fact will not) rank/place Daniel Craig yet. Not even with a gun to my head.
And I'm not certain he ever will star in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula". Judging by the general praise from the critics and the success of Casino Royale at the box office I anticipate Bond 22 will be more of the same.
I think you are absolutely right there MNL about B22 and beyond - it strikes me that a reboot would have been pointless if the ultimate aim was to return to the original 'formula'.
At the end of the day its already been proved that something broken can be fixed - after the lunacy of DAD we have CR which has been described anywhere between acceptable and outstanding by the majority - and if B22 is a disaster (not that I think it will be btw), something else can come after it which puts the train back on the rails again anyway
I think we can now kiss the original 'formula' goodbye with the critical and commercial success of Casino Royale. Babs & Mickey took a calculated gamble which has paid off handsomely. Why would they now need or have any desire to go back to the original/old formula when the new one has been so successful?
Is there a new formula? CR was a great story and very well told. If that's the new formula, I'll take it. It doesn't seem all that different from the first four Bond films/OHMSS, although a couple of those had all those extras towards the end...I guess my expectation for Bond 22 is that they tell another great story very well, perhaps even better than CR. I probably don't expect two armies of frogmen spearing it out underwater, but I do kinda get the impression this time, Bond will end the film with a girl.
Would love to see a great plot ala GF for Bond to uncover/figure out/infiltrate...that would be cool. I'd even take the golf game, lol.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
If I was generalising, being as Roger Moore is your least favourite Bond. I would have said that you favour FYEO & TSWLM way ahead of his other films, they would likely be in your top ten overall. LALD & OP would be next, probably 10th to 15th overall. Then comes TMWTGG, MR & AVTAK and they would be rock bottom.
Moore's best in my view, LALD, comes in no higher than #10 on my list. SWLM, TMWTGG and FYEO hang around in the middle of the pack, MR is pretty far down, and OP and AVTAK will always occupy the lowermost two rungs (I shudder to think what films might replace them ).
I notice you didn't role your eyes at the 53 old geezer in NSNA.
Quite right. As I told ben above, Connery is obviously the superior geezer. Some people simply age better than others, and I find Connery's older Bond infinitely more engaging and interesting than Moore's---apparent upper body strength and at least an implied physical threat being important for the role, IMRO.
Overall, Sean's performances generally declined over time, if anything Roger's generally improved.
I agree with the first part of this sentence, and virulently disagree with the latter part. Moore's quality of portrayal steadily ascended through his first two, and peaked at TSWLM---a nearly-perfect marriage of style and material. With the exception of a brief plateau during FYEO (where I still think he was obviously too old), in my view Moore's other three entries sharply declined in sequence.
You're certainly correct that silliness was not exclusive to Moore; but since Connery was Bond for me and Moore wasn't, I'm nearly always inclined to be more forgiving of his shortcomings---relaxation in his performances, silliness, advancing age, et al.
That's most kind of you to say. I hope you're right
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think 70s Moore had better performances in his second films with his two directors (TMWTGG, MR), while his first films were the better overall vehicles (LALD, TSWLM). Of the two--Hamilton Moore and Gilbert Moore--I suppose I prefer the earlier one, I liked Moore better as Bond when he was more edgy and less comfortable in the role...comparitively speaking, I mean Moore actually seemed like a legitimate threat to kill someone in LALD and TMWTGG, IMO. TSWLM and MR definately played more to Moore's strengths, and coming across as overtly lethal was never that high on his list IMO--which is IMO a defining characteristic of Bond, projecting that blunt instrument quality, at least to some degree.
Agree with Loeff about TSWLM being a near-perfect marriage of actor and material. And while entertaining, just isn't my idea of Bond, sadly.
Is there a new formula? CR was a great story and very well told. If that's the new formula, I'll take it.
...I guess my expectation for Bond 22 is that they tell another great story very well, perhaps even better than CR.
I think there *is* a new formula and that it's the stripped back, grittier, more human and believable Bond that makes CR what it is. As you say, B22 in the same vein promises much and I suspect it might well deliver
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well...just for the record...my prediction is that the Precious Classic Formula will creep back in increments, and that Craig will don them like layers of character/clothing---although I confess that I hope the overall tone remains relatively serious for as long as possible.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Riiight.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
People want to see that their hero can suffer. That makes his escape from suffering more exciting. If a character is to be entertaining he must have weaknesses. Even Superman has Kryptonite.
The thrill is in seeing Bond escape traps and conquer the villain, and how he uses his smarts and overcomes difficulty to do so. If it is a foregone conclusion from the get-go that he will succeed, that is boring.
CR doesn't seem that non-formula to me, just very very better than what we've seen from the franchise in a long long time. If a better mouse trap equals non-formula, then bring on the dancing Inuit ladies!
I agree with blueman. As I said before, thinking about it later I realized how much CR had going for it in keeping with the formula. They could have thrown out the formula a lot more and might as well have since formula lovers were not pleased. But the formula was used well for misdirection which led to some genuine surprises. The next movie will be about a British spy named James Bond who is smooth yet ruthless and who gets the job bloody well done. And that is what the movies have always been about. Formula or no formula.
This is a movie that really strongly believes in Bond and thusly validates the character, the previous movies, and the fans. Those who do not see that are cinematically illiterate. Period.
Well...just for the record...my prediction is that the Precious Classic Formula will creep back in increments, and that Craig will don them like layers of character/clothing---although I confess that I hope the overall tone remains relatively serious for as long as possible.
Seems like a very sensible prediction. In my previous post I stated "I think we can now kiss the original formula goodbye". I didn't mean kiss it goodbye in it's entirety. I'm sure some elements of the original/classic formula will continue to be present.
The title credits with girls should return, I agree...It's a wonderful trademark and not inconsistent with the Craig portrayal, only now they may have wedding rings lol
I'm always amused when fans describe Thunderball as boring. I suppose they aren't recognizing the same things that I, as one fan, regard highly. That golden age classic I'm seeing is one of the best films in the entire canon. Yeah, the numerous underwater scenes may all blend but it's still the ultimate viewing experience. It's uncanny. What does one want in a Bond movie?
A comparison of CR and Craig to TB in regards to superiority is really a non issue with me. Better to let them both stand on their own.
Comments
How about a quick straw poll of "Brosnan is the best Bond" fans: were you convinced of that opinion upon seeing GE, or did you need a couple more films to warm up to him? Far from absurb, it's the nature of the beast to react that way (love at first sight, for lack of a better term, lol), IMHO. People like what they like and there's not a lot of rationality to it initially or even over time, be it Craig, Brosnan, Connery or whomever. Feelings can change, grow, mutate over time, sure, but that in no way negates that very important first impression IMO.
No doubt Brozzer is The Man for many, and that's cool by me. There's a Bond for everyone.
The 'Moore' guys puzzle me, but I respect them... {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not in mine. B-) Here's to diversity {[]
For me, Connery is Bond 1.0; Craig is Bond 2.0...they're not alike, nor should they be: Connery's been done, after all---by Connery, and the others who followed.
I'm going to watch Craig develop, see where he (and the franchise) goes with the character, and I expect to have a whopping good time along the way. Vive le difference.
P.S. Yes, I really think CR is fun. :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Funny, when I think of Craig's Bond, brute force may be on the list but it's certainly not at the top. Cool definately is, just so many moments in CR that buttress that IMO. Much like with Connery, again IMO. Both are very Bond, and encompass a broad spectrum of Bondian qualities. In different measures, perhaps, but not so far apart in the end. IMO.
Just as an aside, I think two actors nailed "their" Bond at the first try: Lazenby and Craig. Connery took two (and a half maybe, depending on the day of the week with me
www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=26409
This is my thread on events...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Personally, I cannot yet place Craig. I do know I loved his film (more than Thunderball) but I want to see him again -- in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula" -- before I make a judgement. Gun to my head, I would slot him second, right behind Connery and ahead of Brosnan, but in general I find it hard to "rank the Bonds" when what I really feel like I'm doing is "ranking the set of films they were in".
What is it about me that puzzles you, Loeff's?
Does your high intellect struggle to cope with the intellectually challenged sub-species of Bond fan who favours Roger over all the others?
I am not in the least bit puzzled by anyone's choice regarding who their favourite or least favourite Bond actor is. Indeed, there is a Bond for everyone.
And I respect you also...{:) -{
I also cannot (in fact will not) rank/place Daniel Craig yet. Not even with a gun to my head.
And I'm not certain he ever will star in a film that more closely adheres to "the formula". Judging by the general praise from the critics and the success of Casino Royale at the box office I anticipate Bond 22 will be more of the same.
Never thought about it that way, MNL, but I like the way you frame the issue B-)
More likely, I'm sure it's just the opposite: that I'm a bit dim,
But early on---Moore dashing across the crocodiles' backs, and the great boat chase of LALD...and MWTGG (which I enjoyed more than almost anyone here)---Moore was fine...he was never really Bond for me, just as I suspect Craig will never be Bond for benskelly and many others, but I'll always concede that he had his moments---before the age of FIFTY-ONE 8-) After that, IMRO they became increasingly scarce.
I respect Moore fans for defending him, despite double-taking pigeons, Tarzan yells and creaky-ancient Keystone Kops fire-engine-ladder gags, but I can't pretend to understand it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Can't forgive the Tarzan yell in OP, though
And I'll agree that Brosnan is a solid middle-ground between Moore and Craig---quite a chasm to cross, not for the faint-of-heart
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
They got my box office $$$, that'll have to do :v
I preferred NSNA that year. A superior geezer :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
[trundles off to bed]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If I was generalising, being as Roger Moore is your least favourite Bond. I would have said that you favour FYEO & TSWLM way ahead of his other films, they would likely be in your top ten overall. LALD & OP would be next, probably 10th to 15th overall. Then comes TMWTGG, MR & AVTAK and they would be rock bottom.
Generalising is pointless even though people do it all the time. You cannot legislate for personal taste. What a wonderful thing that is. Praise be we all don't agree on who is the best actor and what is the best film.
Glad to see you are a fan of TMWTGG. Welcome to the fan club, it's very exclusive......and very small.
I notice you didn't role your eyes at the 53 old geezer in NSNA. Regardless, age has not been an issue for me regards Bond except for in AVTAK. Roger signed up a full year before filming began unlike FYEO & OP where he signed almost at the last minute. Eon/Wilson/Maibaum knew they would have a 57 year old Bond. What to they do? They ignore that and have Bond 'bedding' four women, admittedly two of them are more for Queen & country, but that's no excuse. To make matters worse they employ stuntmen who if they resemble Bond in terms of looks and age it's purely co-incidental. To be fair though, the poor direction and editing is to blame if anything.
Shame, because Christopher Walken is great, Patrick Macnee is great, I really like the sequence at the pumping station and I love the ending on the Golden Gate Bridge. I also like the cinematography, title song and the score.
Hinsight is a wonderful thing, yes. Perhaps Roger should have known the time was right to quit after OP. He certainly did himself no favours by staying on for AVTAK, but then Eon/Wilson/Maibaum did him no favours either.
As for Sean Connery. In the first four films he's a great Bond full stop. His performances in those films are serious contenders for the top four by a Bond actor in the entire series. On the other hand, in his last three Bond films he's far from a great Bond, a pale imitation. His performances in those films are serious contenders for the bottom three by a Bond actor in the entire series. To be fair, I am not really critical of him in DAF because I tend to believe he adjusted his performance to suit the lighter tone of the film.
Overall, Sean's performances generally declined over time, if anything Roger's generally improved. FYEO & OP feature two of his best performances and they were his fifth and sixth Bond films. Roger was more consistent.
I will always defend Roger, but I will not defend the indefencible, e.g.double take pigeons, Tarzan yells, etc. A fraction in percentage terms, I look at the whole picture. Anyway, it's not like the silliness is the exclusive property of the Roger Moore era.
Last thing Loeff's. You are not a bit dim.
I think you are absolutely right there MNL about B22 and beyond - it strikes me that a reboot would have been pointless if the ultimate aim was to return to the original 'formula'.
At the end of the day its already been proved that something broken can be fixed - after the lunacy of DAD we have CR which has been described anywhere between acceptable and outstanding by the majority - and if B22 is a disaster (not that I think it will be btw), something else can come after it which puts the train back on the rails again anyway
I think we can now kiss the original 'formula' goodbye with the critical and commercial success of Casino Royale. Babs & Mickey took a calculated gamble which has paid off handsomely. Why would they now need or have any desire to go back to the original/old formula when the new one has been so successful?
Would love to see a great plot ala GF for Bond to uncover/figure out/infiltrate...that would be cool. I'd even take the golf game, lol.
Moore's best in my view, LALD, comes in no higher than #10 on my list. SWLM, TMWTGG and FYEO hang around in the middle of the pack, MR is pretty far down, and OP and AVTAK will always occupy the lowermost two rungs (I shudder to think what films might replace them
Quite right. As I told ben above, Connery is obviously the superior geezer. Some people simply age better than others, and I find Connery's older Bond infinitely more engaging and interesting than Moore's---apparent upper body strength and at least an implied physical threat being important for the role, IMRO.
I agree with the first part of this sentence, and virulently disagree with the latter part. Moore's quality of portrayal steadily ascended through his first two, and peaked at TSWLM---a nearly-perfect marriage of style and material. With the exception of a brief plateau during FYEO (where I still think he was obviously too old), in my view Moore's other three entries sharply declined in sequence.
You're certainly correct that silliness was not exclusive to Moore; but since Connery was Bond for me and Moore wasn't, I'm nearly always inclined to be more forgiving of his shortcomings---relaxation in his performances, silliness, advancing age, et al.
That's most kind of you to say. I hope you're right
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think 70s Moore had better performances in his second films with his two directors (TMWTGG, MR), while his first films were the better overall vehicles (LALD, TSWLM). Of the two--Hamilton Moore and Gilbert Moore--I suppose I prefer the earlier one, I liked Moore better as Bond when he was more edgy and less comfortable in the role...comparitively speaking, I mean Moore actually seemed like a legitimate threat to kill someone in LALD and TMWTGG, IMO. TSWLM and MR definately played more to Moore's strengths, and coming across as overtly lethal was never that high on his list IMO--which is IMO a defining characteristic of Bond, projecting that blunt instrument quality, at least to some degree.
Agree with Loeff about TSWLM being a near-perfect marriage of actor and material. And while entertaining, just isn't my idea of Bond, sadly.
I think there *is* a new formula and that it's the stripped back, grittier, more human and believable Bond that makes CR what it is. As you say, B22 in the same vein promises much and I suspect it might well deliver
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The thrill is in seeing Bond escape traps and conquer the villain, and how he uses his smarts and overcomes difficulty to do so. If it is a foregone conclusion from the get-go that he will succeed, that is boring.
CR doesn't seem that non-formula to me, just very very better than what we've seen from the franchise in a long long time. If a better mouse trap equals non-formula, then bring on the dancing Inuit ladies!
This is a movie that really strongly believes in Bond and thusly validates the character, the previous movies, and the fans. Those who do not see that are cinematically illiterate. Period.
CR is comparable to the big change in LALD (even though its not great) its had a slight formula change, then came back to Bonds Formula.
I would like to see him with the girl at the end and the titles to have girls.
CR is my new favourite BTW.
"Better make that two."
Seems like a very sensible prediction. In my previous post I stated "I think we can now kiss the original formula goodbye". I didn't mean kiss it goodbye in it's entirety. I'm sure some elements of the original/classic formula will continue to be present.
A comparison of CR and Craig to TB in regards to superiority is really a non issue with me. Better to let them both stand on their own.