Jeez I never feel IN with MR - it's a spoof, I guess I'm IN on the silly jokes but the rest is just kinda there, although the space station reveal is way cool with that awesome Barry cue. :007)
Comparing the emotional draw of QOS to MR's is weird to me, apples and Bentleys.
The last scene of this kind that I can recall in any Bond film is the love scene with Elektra King where she asks him how he survives and he says: "I take pleasure - in great beauty."
Ugh. Every emotion in TWINE is superficial. I hate that film because it's so phony in every sense of the word.
As grittiness goes up, the space for sensuality goes down. The balance must be restored.
I really think both Craig films have perfect balance, especially Casino Royale. The plot was still as romantic Fleming's novel. As matter of fact, they made Le Chiffre more exaggerated as opposed to the novel counterpart who simply was a sweaty, fat guy. )
Jeez I never feel IN with MR - it's a spoof, I guess I'm IN on the silly jokes but the rest is just kinda there, although the space station reveal is way cool with that awesome Barry cue. :007)
Comparing the emotional draw of QOS to MR's is weird to me, apples and Bentleys.
MR really tries nothing more then what it is which is why it's enjoyable. The same goes for the hilarous campy and witty Diamonds Are Forever.
DAF is what it is; MR tries to be something more than what it is IMO - or perhaps it's just a different flavor of spoof Bond? FWIW, I find DAF way more watchable than MR, couldn't make it past Venice last time I gave it a go. Oh well.
MR tries to be something more than what it is IMO - or perhaps it's just a different flavor of spoof Bond?
It's not a spoof like DAF but it's a sci-fi flick with humor. I do enjoy DAF more though because the campy adult humor and the cast. Whoever says Willard Whyte isn't funny is a damn commie.
DAF is what it is; MR tries to be something more than what it is IMO - or perhaps it's just a different flavor of spoof Bond? FWIW, I find DAF way more watchable than MR, couldn't make it past Venice last time I gave it a go. Oh well.
sorry, but totally other opinion from here:
I take MR over DAF on any day. SC looked older than RM in AVTAK, the plot is boring, you can hardly see the budget, which has been pumped in the production and the locations are non-existent.
To my opinion, most of the RM-age-bashers do the mistake to totally ignore the way, movies had to be in the 80s: Cinema had to be larger than life and very entertaining to the masses (well, especially if we are talking about budgets of a Bond production). To fill a cinema in those days, a movie had to be big and funny and the new competition for MR was Star Wars and the movie was a reply on this.
The movie has now 30 years and technology has moved forwards tremendously. But I remember how fascinated I have been 1979, when I saw the Moonraker on the 747, the MR factory and the space station. Not to forget the beautiful Drax castle! There was nothing better at this time and if you check the first Star Wars movie, not everything has been perfect though.
What I want to say is: Take MR minus the Gondola minus 1 or 2 silly jokes and lean back and enjoy a 30 year-old movie and you have good entertainment with some pretty "deep" highlights, which have been mentioned earlier.
And if some are praising the adult humor in DAF, I'd like to remind, that the same people don't stop to bash on the same thing in the RM age.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I love MR. IT has scenes which are the exact opposite of Qos. Think of the scene where Bond has crashed his glider after evading Jaws and is in the middle of the jungle.
There is not a single moment in QoS when the viewer is IN the film with him. We are always kept at a distance by his pain and isolation and I do not find this the slightest bit enjoyable.
Bond is not just action, Bond is action+sensuality. Romance and realism are polar opposites and you have to be very careful how you combine them. As grittiness goes up, the space for sensuality goes down. The balance must be restored.
Well, in a way that scene in the jungle isn't too different to Craig crashing in on Greene's reservoir, pretty daft, except crucially those old films were of a different genre, they charmed you into going along with it (though other fans' tastes are different).
I agree about Craig being alienating. In a way that's the point though, I didn't sympathise with Wayne as Batman, nor too much with Downey as Iron Man, though he does have some wit. So Craig is in the same area and you could argue you're not meant to identify with a killer, he's not a role model.
One difference is that a lot of us have no problem at all with QoS in terms of what it's trying to do, it's the way it's done that grates. I welcome a gritty, realistic Bond film but QoS isn't realistic. Whereas those who hate MR do so because they don't like that kind of film, period.
As this thread goes on it is quite apparent that this is not really about "Quantum of Solace", but another example of "Bondian Chaos" as defined in the AJB Glossary.
While QOS has it's faults, when we start bringing MR into the discussion, look out!
"History is doomed when those who repeat it don't read it...." or something like that!
"I thought I was out, but they keep dragging me back in ...."
MR tries to be something more than what it is IMO - or perhaps it's just a different flavor of spoof Bond?
It's not a spoof like DAF but it's a sci-fi flick with humor. I do enjoy DAF more though because the campy adult humor and the cast. Whoever says Willard Whyte isn't funny is a damn commie.
IMO the only Bond spoof was Cr '67.
Of the two films, I prefer MR. Although I could do without the space sequences, it's an extremely fun film, with a fantastic performance from Moore. It's often thrilling, and is even quite tense (such as at the carnival with Jaws), it featured a terrific villain (although I preferred Stromberg), had a great PTS, a fine Bond girl, some really good dialogue and was a film that achieved much of what it set out to do. When I was younger, I adored MR. Later on, I began to look down on it, mainly because of the space sequences, but now, while I don't think it's a masterpiece (unlike, say, TSWLM), I do think it's a good film, and is certainly one that has high rewatchability value.
DAF is an interesting film. Although I think it has some amazing elements (Wint & Kidd, Bambi & Thumper, the end, the elevator fight, Bondian brutality, much of the dialogue, the dinner at the start, Connery's extraordinary performance which IMO was among the greatest of all time), the film feels extremely tired and also looks quite cheap. The Las Vegas setting probably wasn't appropiate for a Bond film. It looked tacky and a Bond film should not IMO look tacky. It also, as I said, felt tired. Although Connery was magnificent (in fact the entire cast were terrific), the film didn't feel fresh and in later viewings proved to be alot more difficult to watch than I previously remembered. Plus the film was too camp, the only Bond film which I would describe as camp BTW, and I don't think that camp and Bond go together. Finally, the fact that DAF didn't handle the revenge theme well can not be ignored.
Both DAF and MR are mid-range films, but as loyal as I am to Sir Sean (and he was wonderful in DAF), I now prefer MR.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
[Finally, the fact that DAF didn't handle the revenge theme well can not be ignored.
I honestly never cared that it did. I consider DAF just a fun film and I accept it for being what it is, it's basically a spoof of Bond films. The only part I didn't enjoy was the shoddy finale on the oil rig.
[Finally, the fact that DAF didn't handle the revenge theme well can not be ignored.
I honestly never cared that it did. I consider DAF just a fun film and I accept it for being what it is, it's basically a spoof of Bond films. The only part I didn't enjoy was the shoddy finale on the oil rig.
I kinda agree with you, not about it being a spoof as I don't think that any Bond film is a spoof, but about accepting it for what it is. My problem, however, is that coming on the back of OHMSS, a (flawed) masterpiece, It disappoints me that DAF didn't really tackle the revenge theme. I couldn't care less about Vesper dying, but I did care about Tracey, and IMO with DAF, the filmmakers blew the perfect opportunity to have a LTK/type revenge film. Connery going rogue to avenge the death of Tracey; I think that would have been awesome.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I kinda agree with you, not about it being a spoof as I don't think that any Bond film is a spoof, but about accepting it for what it is. My problem, however, is that coming on the back of OHMSS, a (flawed) masterpiece, It disappoints me that DAF didn't really tackle the revenge theme. I couldn't care less about Vesper dying, but I did care about Tracey, and IMO with DAF, the filmmakers blew the perfect opportunity to have a LTK/type revenge film. Connery going rogue to avenge the death of Tracey; I think that would have been awesome.
Well at they could very easily made a revenge film but they were more concerned with making an enjoyable picture with Connery.
Well at they could very easily made a revenge film but they were more concerned with making an enjoyable picture with Connery.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. ) Anyway, I'm only speaking from the point of view of a fan. The reasons why they didn't make a revenge film doesn't really concern me.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
What was title of this thread again? Boy, have you lot gone off track.
For the record - QOS is brilliant. Those in disagreement are just wrong and need to address whether they are true Bond fans or not, and whether they can actually move with the times and embrace a bit of modern thinking as the whole franchise competes with other successful (and very up-to-the-minute) Hollywood movies.
I think many so called Bond fans on this site would only ever be happy with their own script, production and direction of their dream Bond film, and even then they wouldn't like the poor sod who played Bond after all that. But no, they would never work for months or years on a script and submit time and time again, with rejection after rejection in the hope of getting their work in print or to the screen. Instead it is simply easier to criticise and poor scorn on every effort made by someone better than they could ever hope to be.
What appeal does a whole genre of films have to someone if they hate this Bond actor or that Bond actor, or film or both? Once or twice maybe, most people have at least one film they're not keen on, but some threads here have contributors who probably hate half the films and are indifferent to the other half. I think many people here are falling into the critic's trap of negativity over commonsense. It's so much easier/funnier/self-gratifying to condemn and take something apart negatively, than to appraise.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Well at they could very easily made a revenge film but they were more concerned with making an enjoyable picture with Connery.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. ) Anyway, I'm only speaking from the point of view of a fan. The reasons why they didn't make a revenge film doesn't really concern me.
I meant that after OHMSS took in a lower then expected box office, wich was NOT because of Lazenby's popularity BTW, Cubby and Harry decided they really want to put the gloss on for Bond 7.
What was title of this thread again? Boy, have you lot gone off track.
For the record - QOS is brilliant. Those in disagreement are just wrong and need to address whether they are true Bond fans or not, and whether they can actually move with the times and embrace a bit of modern thinking as the whole franchise competes with other successful (and very up-to-the-minute) Hollywood movies.
I think many so called Bond fans on this site would only ever be happy with their own script, production and direction of their dream Bond film, and even then they wouldn't like the poor sod who played Bond after all that. But no, they would never work for months or years on a script and submit time and time again, with rejection after rejection in the hope of getting their work in print or to the screen. Instead it is simply easier to criticise and poor scorn on every effort made by someone better than they could ever hope to be.
What appeal does a whole genre of films have to someone if they hate this Bond actor or that Bond actor, or film or both? Once or twice maybe, most people have at least one film they're not keen on, but some threads here have contributors who probably hate half the films and are indifferent to the other half. I think many people here are falling into the critic's trap of negativity over commonsense. It's so much easier/funnier/self-gratifying to condemn and take something apart negatively, than to appraise.
I certainly haven't gone off track on this topic. I was just using MR as an example of a Bond film that has some qualities that I like in the genre and which have disappeared pretty much since TWINE. QoS could have been made well if more attention had been paid to the script - by avoiding hackneyed lines, crappy motivations, dull plots and unlikeable characters.
I have attempted one script 'God's Assassin' and it was my first ever and I'm the first to say that it needs a lot more work. I wrote it as a reaction to the inadequacies of DAD which is now looking like a great Bond film compared with QoS and that's saying something.
I have also worked for months and years on a number of scripts and been rejected so I know what its like to be at the pointy end of criticism. I dont think that anything I have written so far deserves to be made and consider myself an apprentice screenwriter. What bugs me is that the people whose scripts are being optioned, bought and used to make big budget films are often not deserving of such attention. I can only assume that the film 'The Player' is realistic and films get developed for political reasons rather than reasons of talent.
I also get tired of seeing great franchises screwed up - it happened with Alien 3 and Terminator 3 and now its happening with Bond too.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I don't think you can compare any three or four film franchise to Bond...arguably, the third films in Alien and Terminator were missteps...and obviously you aren't overjoyed with the current Bond era----but Bond ebbs and flows over the decades, through 22 pictures so far---and IMHO 007 has been in much worse shape than he is at the present time
Interestingly, some of us are having quite a good time with Bond lately...just as others were having great fun when I thought the series was on life support! :007) Vive le difference; c'est la guerre.
If you're not happy with Bond at the moment, be patient and take the long view. Evolution in the BondiverseTM is a reliable constant.
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
Personally I haven't had as much fun watching Bond since the Timothy Dalton era.
(Do two movies actually count as an era?)
Two is sufficient to make an "era" IMO because usually have after the first film, a Bond actor establishes the nature of his films.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I'd still call Dalton's brief tenure an era---it's definitely a Bond period all its own, in that it featured a younger, more vibrant and Fleming-faithful actor...but still carried some uncomfortable comedic baggage from Moore's time. It was an era, as far as I'm concerned, a transitional one with a long lag time between between Dalton's last and Brosnan's first as its final punctuation mark.
Lazenby definitely didn't have an era )
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
but still carried some uncomfortable comedic baggage from Moore's time.
There is always some sort of hangover from the previous era when a new one begins. Moore had it for his first two films though honestly I wish he kept up that nature of his Bond, especially in The Man With The Golden Gun.
I'd still call Dalton's brief tenure an era---it's definitely a Bond period all its own, in that it featured a younger, more vibrant and Fleming-faithful actor...but still carried some uncomfortable comedic baggage from Moore's time. It was an era, as far as I'm concerned, a transitional one with a long lag time between between Dalton's last and Brosnan's first as its final punctuation mark.
Always considered GE the punctuation mark on the 80s Glen era, it's got all the signature things of that era: overly complicated plot, sideline plotting that goes nowhere and drags the main plotline along, inappropriate humor (sometimes at the expense of Bond), and a Bond who always seems to be standing on shifting sands - is he serious? spoofy? sexy? dorky? all of the above? well yeah apparently, which is very very weird IMO. Bond on film should be cool, 80s Bond just never was and Brosnan in GE tried but didn't quite hit the mark, although I thought he finally got it in TND - so a one film era for him then?
I also get tired of seeing great franchises screwed up - it happened with Alien 3 and Terminator 3 and now its happening with Bond too.
Just because you don't care for the new films doesn't mean the series is getting screwed up. There are millions of people who love the film just as much as those who don't like it.
I've watched QoS a couple more times on Blu-Ray and I have to say I liked it more with each viewing. I love the pace of the film, there is a momentum to the story that I can't helped but be dragged along by. I also really like the overall tone of the film. My only quibble is with the title song, it works better in context than as a stand alone song but it's still a stinker
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Delicious - let's face it, Bond right now isn't for you, and nobody is going to change your opinion. Years from now you'll probably actually enjoy Craig and the current films. It works like that - I didn't like Dalton at the time, or either of his films - now I enjoy both what he brings to the screen and what both offerings have to offer. Leoff summed it up perfectly, it will ebb and flow and in a film or two's time, I'm sure you'll like the next guy and we'll all be bitching about what it's doing to the franchise...
Don't take my previous comments too literally, they weren't really aimed at you - I've had a novel published, and I've had others rejected. I know the work involved. I hope you keep going with your project and get the hard work recognised.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Delicious - let's face it, Bond right now isn't for you, and nobody is going to change your opinion. Years from now you'll probably actually enjoy Craig and the current films. It works like that - I didn't like Dalton at the time, or either of his films - now I enjoy both what he brings to the screen and what both offerings have to offer. Leoff summed it up perfectly, it will ebb and flow and in a film or two's time, I'm sure you'll like the next guy and we'll all be bitching about what it's doing to the franchise...
Don't take my previous comments too literally, they weren't really aimed at you - I've had a novel published, and I've had others rejected. I know the work involved. I hope you keep going with your project and get the hard work recognised.
TSWLM was the first Bond film I ever saw at the movies so I missed any controversy when Moore took over from Lazenby and Lazenby from Connery etc. But I remember being delighted when Dalton took over from Moore and also when Brosnan took over from Dalton. The producers weren't messing with the formula in those days (they enhanced it though) but the whole Craig thing is a different kettle of fish - a quantum leap if you will excuse the pun. I was comfortable with the franchise and I rarely compare the films with each other as they all stand on their own as fine pieces of entertainment. But with CR and QoS they have meddled with the formula to its detriment and a lot has been lost that I really enjoy in the previous films. And that is because they have gone somewhere they shouldnt - inside Bonds head. Do we see Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan being psychoanalyzed? We do a bit with Brosnan which is where the rot started to set in and now its all gone completely pear shaped.
The way to keep Bond fresh is not to focus on the inner landscape but by having exciting locations, cars, conflicts, plots and gadgets. Bond's world is an extroverted place and exploring his inner world is a big mistake. He doesn't need to compete with Bourne.
The way to keep Bond fresh is not to focus on the inner landscape but by having exciting locations, cars, conflicts, plots and gadgets. Bond's world is an extroverted place and exploring his inner world is a big mistake. He doesn't need to compete with Bourne.
First of all, I am really sick and **** tired of the Bourne comparison crap. Enough already, we all heard it before. James Bond still makes jokes, seduces women, drives fast cars, nitpicks on his food and drink, and gets into larger then life situations. Bourne is straight faced, he hates what the CIA did to him, his situations are grounded more in real life, and he as no time for fun at all. Bond isn't Bourne, he's nothing like Bourne, end of story.
Secound, just making everything shiny on the surface is the way to keep things stale, not fresh. All you will have is just the same crap over and over like the rut the series fell into for about 40 years. There was no variety, lame villians with goofy plots and Bond sticking to a bland, marketable image. You have dive into the character's mind at some point to make him fresh and both Craig films have done so succesfully. Really what Craig as Bond is doing is just common sense, he simply aware of what he does for a living and like anyone else, it gets to him. Ian Fleming did the same exact thing in his novels. The first chapter of Goldfinger was a cold, recount of a murder he commited in Mexico on a mission to bust a drug cartel. Bond desperately tries to justify killing the man in his mind, even though it was in understandable self defense. Even in The Hidelbrand Rarity, he hated the fact that Milton Krest used that poison to kill so many aquatic life just to get one little fish. Bond is a man who can't stand killing and his job is what drives to not only question his own motivations, but throws him into his pleasures. Also in Fleming's stories had a formula but his novels were not formulaic, they had alot of variety in them. CASINO ROYALE and MOONRAKER for example are tense low key thrillers and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE hardly was a spy novel though excellent and rich with atmosphere.
Long story short, this series needs explore all sorts of new ideas to keep from getting stale, in terms of character and story.
And that is because they have gone somewhere they shouldnt - inside Bonds head. Do we see Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan being psychoanalyzed? We do a bit with Brosnan which is where the rot started to set in and now its all gone completely pear shaped.
Why shouldn't they go inside Bond's head? I think it's better we get to see the inner turmoil rather than just cheering on a man who seems indifferent to killing and maiming. I have a keen interest in psychology and I enjoy the analysis.
The way to keep Bond fresh is not to focus on the inner landscape but by having exciting locations, cars, conflicts, plots and gadgets. Bond's world is an extroverted place and exploring his inner world is a big mistake. He doesn't need to compete with Bourne.
The old formula was starting to get stale, it was being done to death. A shake up is exactly what was needed. In my view the films got steadily worse with each of Brosnan's outings and after DAD it was clear a change was needed.
I appreciate the change of direction isn't for everybody, I have friends who loved the older films who hate the new films. I also have friends who hated the older films who love the new ones so it works both ways.
But all people see things differently, the powers that be can't please everybody and it's to their credit that they aren't trying to, I think that is where they were starting to go wrong prior to CR.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Comments
Comparing the emotional draw of QOS to MR's is weird to me, apples and Bentleys.
Ugh. Every emotion in TWINE is superficial. I hate that film because it's so phony in every sense of the word.
I really think both Craig films have perfect balance, especially Casino Royale. The plot was still as romantic Fleming's novel. As matter of fact, they made Le Chiffre more exaggerated as opposed to the novel counterpart who simply was a sweaty, fat guy.
MR really tries nothing more then what it is which is why it's enjoyable. The same goes for the hilarous campy and witty Diamonds Are Forever.
It's not a spoof like DAF but it's a sci-fi flick with humor. I do enjoy DAF more though because the campy adult humor and the cast. Whoever says Willard Whyte isn't funny is a damn commie.
sorry, but totally other opinion from here:
I take MR over DAF on any day. SC looked older than RM in AVTAK, the plot is boring, you can hardly see the budget, which has been pumped in the production and the locations are non-existent.
To my opinion, most of the RM-age-bashers do the mistake to totally ignore the way, movies had to be in the 80s: Cinema had to be larger than life and very entertaining to the masses (well, especially if we are talking about budgets of a Bond production). To fill a cinema in those days, a movie had to be big and funny and the new competition for MR was Star Wars and the movie was a reply on this.
The movie has now 30 years and technology has moved forwards tremendously. But I remember how fascinated I have been 1979, when I saw the Moonraker on the 747, the MR factory and the space station. Not to forget the beautiful Drax castle! There was nothing better at this time and if you check the first Star Wars movie, not everything has been perfect though.
What I want to say is: Take MR minus the Gondola minus 1 or 2 silly jokes and lean back and enjoy a 30 year-old movie and you have good entertainment with some pretty "deep" highlights, which have been mentioned earlier.
And if some are praising the adult humor in DAF, I'd like to remind, that the same people don't stop to bash on the same thing in the RM age.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Well, in a way that scene in the jungle isn't too different to Craig crashing in on Greene's reservoir, pretty daft, except crucially those old films were of a different genre, they charmed you into going along with it (though other fans' tastes are different).
I agree about Craig being alienating. In a way that's the point though, I didn't sympathise with Wayne as Batman, nor too much with Downey as Iron Man, though he does have some wit. So Craig is in the same area and you could argue you're not meant to identify with a killer, he's not a role model.
One difference is that a lot of us have no problem at all with QoS in terms of what it's trying to do, it's the way it's done that grates. I welcome a gritty, realistic Bond film but QoS isn't realistic. Whereas those who hate MR do so because they don't like that kind of film, period.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While QOS has it's faults, when we start bringing MR into the discussion, look out!
"History is doomed when those who repeat it don't read it...." or something like that!
"I thought I was out, but they keep dragging me back in ...."
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Of the two films, I prefer MR. Although I could do without the space sequences, it's an extremely fun film, with a fantastic performance from Moore. It's often thrilling, and is even quite tense (such as at the carnival with Jaws), it featured a terrific villain (although I preferred Stromberg), had a great PTS, a fine Bond girl, some really good dialogue and was a film that achieved much of what it set out to do. When I was younger, I adored MR. Later on, I began to look down on it, mainly because of the space sequences, but now, while I don't think it's a masterpiece (unlike, say, TSWLM), I do think it's a good film, and is certainly one that has high rewatchability value.
DAF is an interesting film. Although I think it has some amazing elements (Wint & Kidd, Bambi & Thumper, the end, the elevator fight, Bondian brutality, much of the dialogue, the dinner at the start, Connery's extraordinary performance which IMO was among the greatest of all time), the film feels extremely tired and also looks quite cheap. The Las Vegas setting probably wasn't appropiate for a Bond film. It looked tacky and a Bond film should not IMO look tacky. It also, as I said, felt tired. Although Connery was magnificent (in fact the entire cast were terrific), the film didn't feel fresh and in later viewings proved to be alot more difficult to watch than I previously remembered. Plus the film was too camp, the only Bond film which I would describe as camp BTW, and I don't think that camp and Bond go together. Finally, the fact that DAF didn't handle the revenge theme well can not be ignored.
Both DAF and MR are mid-range films, but as loyal as I am to Sir Sean (and he was wonderful in DAF), I now prefer MR.
I honestly never cared that it did. I consider DAF just a fun film and I accept it for being what it is, it's basically a spoof of Bond films. The only part I didn't enjoy was the shoddy finale on the oil rig.
Well at they could very easily made a revenge film but they were more concerned with making an enjoyable picture with Connery.
For the record - QOS is brilliant. Those in disagreement are just wrong and need to address whether they are true Bond fans or not, and whether they can actually move with the times and embrace a bit of modern thinking as the whole franchise competes with other successful (and very up-to-the-minute) Hollywood movies.
I think many so called Bond fans on this site would only ever be happy with their own script, production and direction of their dream Bond film, and even then they wouldn't like the poor sod who played Bond after all that. But no, they would never work for months or years on a script and submit time and time again, with rejection after rejection in the hope of getting their work in print or to the screen. Instead it is simply easier to criticise and poor scorn on every effort made by someone better than they could ever hope to be.
What appeal does a whole genre of films have to someone if they hate this Bond actor or that Bond actor, or film or both? Once or twice maybe, most people have at least one film they're not keen on, but some threads here have contributors who probably hate half the films and are indifferent to the other half. I think many people here are falling into the critic's trap of negativity over commonsense. It's so much easier/funnier/self-gratifying to condemn and take something apart negatively, than to appraise.
http://apbateman.com
Loeffs, can you please send me over the good version, Germany is now officially DSOAPP land
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I meant that after OHMSS took in a lower then expected box office, wich was NOT because of Lazenby's popularity BTW, Cubby and Harry decided they really want to put the gloss on for Bond 7.
I certainly haven't gone off track on this topic. I was just using MR as an example of a Bond film that has some qualities that I like in the genre and which have disappeared pretty much since TWINE. QoS could have been made well if more attention had been paid to the script - by avoiding hackneyed lines, crappy motivations, dull plots and unlikeable characters.
I have attempted one script 'God's Assassin' and it was my first ever and I'm the first to say that it needs a lot more work. I wrote it as a reaction to the inadequacies of DAD which is now looking like a great Bond film compared with QoS and that's saying something.
I have also worked for months and years on a number of scripts and been rejected so I know what its like to be at the pointy end of criticism. I dont think that anything I have written so far deserves to be made and consider myself an apprentice screenwriter. What bugs me is that the people whose scripts are being optioned, bought and used to make big budget films are often not deserving of such attention. I can only assume that the film 'The Player' is realistic and films get developed for political reasons rather than reasons of talent.
I also get tired of seeing great franchises screwed up - it happened with Alien 3 and Terminator 3 and now its happening with Bond too.
Interestingly, some of us are having quite a good time with Bond lately...just as others were having great fun when I thought the series was on life support! :007) Vive le difference; c'est la guerre.
If you're not happy with Bond at the moment, be patient and take the long view. Evolution in the BondiverseTM is a reliable constant.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Personally I haven't had as much fun watching Bond since the Timothy Dalton era.
(Do two movies actually count as an era?)
Two is sufficient to make an "era" IMO because usually have after the first film, a Bond actor establishes the nature of his films.
Lazenby definitely didn't have an era
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
There is always some sort of hangover from the previous era when a new one begins. Moore had it for his first two films though honestly I wish he kept up that nature of his Bond, especially in The Man With The Golden Gun.
Yes they do! Dalton rules!
Just because you don't care for the new films doesn't mean the series is getting screwed up. There are millions of people who love the film just as much as those who don't like it.
I've watched QoS a couple more times on Blu-Ray and I have to say I liked it more with each viewing. I love the pace of the film, there is a momentum to the story that I can't helped but be dragged along by. I also really like the overall tone of the film. My only quibble is with the title song, it works better in context than as a stand alone song but it's still a stinker
Don't take my previous comments too literally, they weren't really aimed at you - I've had a novel published, and I've had others rejected. I know the work involved. I hope you keep going with your project and get the hard work recognised.
http://apbateman.com
TSWLM was the first Bond film I ever saw at the movies so I missed any controversy when Moore took over from Lazenby and Lazenby from Connery etc. But I remember being delighted when Dalton took over from Moore and also when Brosnan took over from Dalton. The producers weren't messing with the formula in those days (they enhanced it though) but the whole Craig thing is a different kettle of fish - a quantum leap if you will excuse the pun. I was comfortable with the franchise and I rarely compare the films with each other as they all stand on their own as fine pieces of entertainment. But with CR and QoS they have meddled with the formula to its detriment and a lot has been lost that I really enjoy in the previous films. And that is because they have gone somewhere they shouldnt - inside Bonds head. Do we see Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan being psychoanalyzed? We do a bit with Brosnan which is where the rot started to set in and now its all gone completely pear shaped.
The way to keep Bond fresh is not to focus on the inner landscape but by having exciting locations, cars, conflicts, plots and gadgets. Bond's world is an extroverted place and exploring his inner world is a big mistake. He doesn't need to compete with Bourne.
First of all, I am really sick and **** tired of the Bourne comparison crap. Enough already, we all heard it before. James Bond still makes jokes, seduces women, drives fast cars, nitpicks on his food and drink, and gets into larger then life situations. Bourne is straight faced, he hates what the CIA did to him, his situations are grounded more in real life, and he as no time for fun at all. Bond isn't Bourne, he's nothing like Bourne, end of story.
Secound, just making everything shiny on the surface is the way to keep things stale, not fresh. All you will have is just the same crap over and over like the rut the series fell into for about 40 years. There was no variety, lame villians with goofy plots and Bond sticking to a bland, marketable image. You have dive into the character's mind at some point to make him fresh and both Craig films have done so succesfully. Really what Craig as Bond is doing is just common sense, he simply aware of what he does for a living and like anyone else, it gets to him. Ian Fleming did the same exact thing in his novels. The first chapter of Goldfinger was a cold, recount of a murder he commited in Mexico on a mission to bust a drug cartel. Bond desperately tries to justify killing the man in his mind, even though it was in understandable self defense. Even in The Hidelbrand Rarity, he hated the fact that Milton Krest used that poison to kill so many aquatic life just to get one little fish. Bond is a man who can't stand killing and his job is what drives to not only question his own motivations, but throws him into his pleasures. Also in Fleming's stories had a formula but his novels were not formulaic, they had alot of variety in them. CASINO ROYALE and MOONRAKER for example are tense low key thrillers and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE hardly was a spy novel though excellent and rich with atmosphere.
Long story short, this series needs explore all sorts of new ideas to keep from getting stale, in terms of character and story.
Why shouldn't they go inside Bond's head? I think it's better we get to see the inner turmoil rather than just cheering on a man who seems indifferent to killing and maiming. I have a keen interest in psychology and I enjoy the analysis.
The old formula was starting to get stale, it was being done to death. A shake up is exactly what was needed. In my view the films got steadily worse with each of Brosnan's outings and after DAD it was clear a change was needed.
I appreciate the change of direction isn't for everybody, I have friends who loved the older films who hate the new films. I also have friends who hated the older films who love the new ones so it works both ways.
But all people see things differently, the powers that be can't please everybody and it's to their credit that they aren't trying to, I think that is where they were starting to go wrong prior to CR.