biggest dropoff
bacaret
ArizonaPosts: 73MI6 Agent
With alot of people thinking qos is far inferior to cr I was wondering what everyone thought was the biggest dropoff in quality from one movie to another in the history of the bond series. Mine would probably be tswlm to mr. I have always thought tswlm was Roger's best movie, and then came mr which in my opinion is one of the very worst.
then of course you could do the opposite and see which movie inproved the most form one movie to the next, and in this case mine would be ltk to ge again ge is one of my favorites while ltk is at near the bottom on my list. :B-)
then of course you could do the opposite and see which movie inproved the most form one movie to the next, and in this case mine would be ltk to ge again ge is one of my favorites while ltk is at near the bottom on my list. :B-)
Comments
People who think LALD, TMWTGG and even OP were camp need to wake up. Those films did not have the 007 actor on auto-pilot. They did not have a villain dressed in drag. They did not have an overall comedic tone where almost nothing was taken seriously. They did not have elephants playing slots. They did not have characters like the foul-mouthed Shady Tree. They did not have Bond talking to a rat. They do not have a villain who is so stupid that he always ends up trying to kill Bond in a way where he can escape. They did not have bimbo Bond girls. Sure LALD, TMWTGG and OP had their comedic camp-like moments (inflated Kananga, Kung-Fu school, Bond swinging on vines like Tarzan) but their overall feel seemed serious enough to me and I enjoy them very much. They all have many sophisticated and classic moments (the boat chase, the duel with Scaramanga, the raid on OP's palace). I can't say the same thing for DAF. Without Big Sean I guarantee you that film would be reviled the world over and not even considered to be part of the Bond world.
Sorry for the rant, but it stuns me how many average moviegoers think that like half of the Bond films to date are campfests or parodies. IMO only one came close and it had the most loved Bond of all: Sean Connery. These people actually need to watch the movies before they make these claims and act like all films before CR except for Connery's middle three were campy trash.
{[] Couldn't agree more.
There's some merit to citing the OHMSS-to-DAF dropoff...that one was pretty steep.
But I tend to look at it in a different way...a long term, multi-picture dropoff in quality, with admitted occasional upticks: TSWLM, in '77---to AVTAK in '85.
IMO, Moore was at his zenith in terms of style and tailor-made tone with Spy, and it mostly just got worse after that (the dive was briefly arrested in '81 with the uneven FYEO).
But for a back to back, jarring drop...OHMSS to DAF hasn't been equalled. And I hope it never is.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Which isn't saying much for CR
Back on topic, I agree with yodboy: OHMSS to DAF was a terrible dropoff. As far as MR goes, I think it was a strong follow-up to TSWLM. They're both over-the-top films in their own way.
Yeah, yeah... :v Gotta toss out a softball every once in a while
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
At the time, it wasn't the clear dropoff we can see today with 20/20 hindsight. The big buzz about Diamonds was that SEAN WAS BACK!!! and that forgave a lot of sins. And it has to be remembered that OHMSS wasn't fondly regarded back then- it has grown with stature over the years, while DAF hasn't.
With CR to QoS, that factor isn't there and isn't aided by CR being simply a good film, never mind a good Bond film. Many non-Bond fans (I'm thinking specifically about my late father, who tolerated my Bond fanaticism from 1966 and liked CR despite not being a Bond fan, but there are others) enjoyed CR as a movie irrespective of the main character. QoS doesn't seem to be generating that enthusiasm.
Live and Let Die/TMWTGG
I am not a fan of OHMSS
Yea you are right there is a big drop from ohmss to Daf,and the wierd part it goes from Lazenby the least well known Bond to Connery the most well and loved Bond.
My least favourite films are probably MR and DAD (with that said I still enjoy both...I am a fan of all the films) but I don't think there was such a massive drop off between TSWLM to MR or TWINE to DAD. Certainly the biggest actor drop off was from GE to DAD...wow, quelle la difference!
As for the most remarkable rise in standard, I'd say quite confidently: DAD to CR
Although the same director, star (and costars, including Sherriff Pepper - wtf?), writer and many other LALD alumni were involved, TMWTGG was a poor farce compared with the witty, sinister and, yes, cool LALD. Ok, Christopher Lee and Maud Adams redeem it slightly, and there's a great car stunt, but, er, that's about all it has going for it.
And as for the greatest improvement from one film to the next, no question: DAD > CR.
I agree with your thought about improvment though. Although a case could be made for YOLT to OHMSS as well.
Or for that matter, CR to DN.
I've always loved MR, but I'll concede it may be because I saw it before I saw TSWLM.
Back on topic, biggest dropoff-
CR to QOS. Perhaps CR just set the bar so high, but QOS is a disappointment for me in a way that some of the weaker Brosnan films never were, possibly because GE was never one of my faves.
AVTAK to TLD. AVTAK is the series' nadir while TLD is the best Bond film made since TB.
I think I have changed my mind as far as the greatest rise you are right it has to be dad to cr... big diference!!!
Biggest drop-off for me is also OHMSS - DAF. Other ones would be TLD - LTK and TWINE - DAD.
Greatest rise for me is LTK - GE. Others would be DAD - CR, AVTAK - TLD, TMWTGG - TSWLM, MR - FYEO
Could not agree more. Here, it is not as if one good movie was followed by one bad one. Here, some of the most well-written, well-directed, well-acted Bond films ever were followed by a creatively empty film that would provide the template for every Bond paradoy, an unpleasantly large chunk of the Moore era, and stereotyped the Bond films as mindless action flicks rather than suspenseful spy adventures.
However the drop off between CR & QOS is at least as big as OHMSS to DAF in my book.
I realize that for many people Quantum of Solace was a disappointment. And I'll be the first to admit that it took a few viewings for me to really appreciate everything going on in the movie (and there is quite a bit). I also realize that evaluations of movies are largely subjective. But, simply from the perspective of cinematic quality, I really do not see the two sets of movies mentioned here (OHMSS & DAF and CR & QOS) as similar in a "drop off" measurement.
In the case of OHMSS you have a well-thought out story that, save a few minor hiccups, is well-executed in that all the elements of the story and characters are developed logically and (mostly) completely. The action scenes are unique in the series (both in content and in how they are shot), and it is obvious, whether you love or hate the movie, that the directors and actors cared about a fidelity to the novel the movie was based on. All of this could also be said of Casino Royale, independent of whether you liked what was going on or not.
When we come to the question of a drop-off, for me the difference here is obvious. In DAF, there could, and given where we leave Bond in OHMSS, there logically should be, some kind of continuation of Bond's character arc. There is an opportunity here to continue an evolution of the story that began in the preceding film. Rather than try and miss the mark at it, Diamonds Are Forever ignores the opportunity all together. In short, the actors, producers and directors don't even try to continue the story. Quantum of Solace, whether you like the attempt it made or not, at least recognized the need to continue the story of its preceding film logically, demonstrating a respect that had come before not seen in DAF. Couple this with the generally poor or disinterested acting, the primacy placed on Sean Connery simply being Bond and the not-so-thinly-veiled intention to recycle the Goldfinger magic rather than attempt innovation makes Diamonds Are Forever fall much farther from its predecessor than Quantum of Solace does.
You make some excellent points. It may be that for me that the current dissapointment is raw and recent, whereas with DAF it has been softened by time.
I wont go into to much detail here, as much digital ink has already been spilt on this subject, but the biggest problem for me (apart from what is possibly the weakest and most ineffectual villain in the series) is that by focusing upon the 'blunt instrument' nature of Bond we have lost whatever draws us to the character in the first place. I want to be crystal clear, I don't care two hoots for Moneypenny, or Q, or the gunbarrel scene...or any of the things that have often been cited as problems. I really loved CR, and welcome a harder edged, more gritty portrayal, but in QOS it seems to me that we have lost any sense of glamour, or light and shade and have 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater', in favour of an uber badass killing machine. I know that many see layers of nuance and subtlety in Craigs's portrayal, and they must be there as there is so precious little dialouge to go on.
Even in the rightly derided DAF I can still recognise Bond as a character in some scenes, which for me despite the excellent points you make just does not happen for me in QOS.
I read in a Sunday Newspaper in England (The Times) a small piece where Fleming states that Bond is not really a Hero, but a blunt instrument of the state ( I'm paraphrasing) The point that I am making is that Fleming himself may not have the definitive word/ interpretation of his creation. Bluntly I think Fleming is wrong about Bond (not unusual for an Author, I could go on about 'readerly' versus 'writerly' texts, but will save that for another time) I think the character that he created is more than that crude description, and more than the sum of his parts, and either intentionaly or not has traits that have made him endure beyond the lifespan of a 'blunt instrument ' or crude action Hero. Nobody in their right mind would want to 'be' Jason Bourne, and live that horrible tormented existence, but the aspirational dimension as a counterweight in Bonds life is impotant, and for me is absent in QOS.
the bottom line is we have to not just admire, but actually like him on some level or the whole thing falls apart without charisma.