A New Member's Thoughts

BIG TAM

Hello all.

This is my first posting to these message boards. I read the various threads daily & am fascinated with the inflamed passions some of the topics evoke. Poor old Daniel Craig still gets a bashing. For what reason I can’t really see but I’m sure Roger Moore is well pleased such online social networking didn’t exist in 1973. Just imagine the ire of the pro-Connery mob back then!

At my Dad’s request I recently showed him my entire Bond collection – 22 films in a month. Quite a feat & it highlighted some interesting things which I hope offer insights into my own love of Bond. To avoid any raised temperatures it goes without saying that all points raised are IMHO…

001. The ‘60s era’s the best. Easy to say in hindsight but the films fit the times like a glove. The Bonds set trends then. Now they’re catching up. Plus Connery has the pick of the plots, with both he & film-makers maintaining good taste in keeping a nice balance between wit & drama. Well, all except for….

002. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE! Austin Powers casts a long shadow. Poor old Donald Pleasance can’t handle his cat & Connery’s performance smacks of ‘contractual obligation’. I loved it when I was 10 but now find it a lesser quality film with Bond buried beneath a slew of sets & hardware. Great title song, though.

003. George Lazenby’s under-rated. I’m not a Fleming afficionado by any means but ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is simply the best marriage of character & spectacle. Some may prefer their Bond to be something of an enigma, but I like a bit of humanity added to 007’s arsenal.

004. Roger Moore’s better than people give him credit for. He gets stick over his portrayal, but he does it his way, best not just for him but for the films which had already opted for a cartoony approach with DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. The ‘60s films were films for adults that kids could go & see. By the ‘70s the emphasis had switched. I suppose one has to keep this in mind when watching the films from this era.

005. The ‘80s is a bit of a drab time. The Americans are upping their game with action cinema. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK at the start of the decade, DIE HARD at the end, Schwarzenegger & co in between are raising the bar. The Bonds seem mired in complacency. Dalton’s dynamic thesping comes too late in the day to really shake things up. A great shame. He’s the right Bond at the wrong time. Ideally, he should have been 007 in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY & could have built on this for several films.

006. Pierce Brosnan’s over-rated. Now I’m not one of those Brosnan naysayers in light of Daniel Craig’s tenure but I just don’t see Pierce as The Second Coming. His performance blends Moore & Connery (about 70/30%, I’d say) to please both camps but comes across a tad smug. He’s the luckiest actor in the role having not had to establish Bond in unchartered waters or take over from a popular actor.

007. Jason Bourne. At the start I said the Bonds set trends, hence the likes of Matt Helm, Derek Flint & Bulldog Drummond jumping on the bandwagon. But as the Americans wised up to lone-man-on-a-mission action cinema they’ve progressively got better at aping the format, culminating in Ethan Hunt’s glass tower travailings & Bourne’s amnesiac escapades. It can be no surprise CASINO ROYALE follows a similar pattern to tap into this latest audience trend for tortured-soul leading man. Whether this will continue for a prolongued period… Well, who knows? Perhaps that’s part of the fun.

In conclusion then I pretty much like Bond in whatever incarnation he takes. Some films are always going to be better than others & I’ll always prefer a more ‘realistic’ spy adventure to a fantasy-based extravaganza. But then why do I turn to THE SPY WHO LOVED ME when I’m in the mood for a Bond DVD? Go figure. I certainly can’t. But I’m more puzzled by people’s willingness to switch off from the franchise because the latest incumbent is not to their liking. The constant recasting is what propels the series forward. I’m a Craig lover but look forward to another actor giving it a shot in time to come. So, I’m happy that Bond is still going strong in 2012 with SKYFALL promising to maintain my inner-kid delirium.

Now I look forward to all of the above being cheered & ripped apart in equal measure…

Thunderpussy

Welcome BIG TAM. -{ -{ -{

Some very good Points, Even if you are a Craig fan. )

(Although they do have a thread for new members to introduce themselves, I'm only pointing this out
because I've got in to trouble in the past for this sort of thing. As this might be moved there.)

Please jump in, get stuck in to all the debates, arguments and fights You might even make
a few friends ( I haven't of course ) ) I have a list of enemies, They know who they are. :v

I agree with most of your points, Lazenby under rated, Brosnan over rated, OHMSS is the BEST. -{
Moore Better than he gets credit for. And Dalton was Fantastic. :007)
I might even be coming round to Craig, Although that might just be the excitement of Skyfall.

So welcome on board, I'll look forward to reading your views.

zaphod

Welcome indeed. I also agree with most of what you say, but we part company over Roger Moore. Never mind we are a broad church and mostly well mannered and reasonably behaved.
If TP is coming around to DC then the tide really has changed B-)

In any event good to have some new blood and you join us at an exciting time.

Blackleiter

Great to have you in the mix, Big T! I'm right with you on Connery, Lazenby, Craig and Dalton. I think I enjoyed Brosnan's portrayal a bit more than you did, although I'll admit that his films were pretty unexceptional mostly due to poor scripts. And just as you have chosen TSWLM as you "guilty pleasure", I feel the same about YOLT. Since my old friend TP has been gracious enough to admit he might becoming around on Craig, I'll spare you my screed regarding Sir Roger (although if you have been reading our posts for any length of time, you are probably well-aware of my stance in that regard!) Anyway, this is a great group with a bunch of really passionate, knowledgeable and witty 007 fans, and I'm looking forward to your contributions. -{

BIG TAM

Thanks for the replies of welcome. I'm sure the congeniality will stop when I admit to MOONRAKER & THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN as being my Guilty Bond Pleasures. ) In my defence I put this down to hitting a mid-life crisis (I'm 43) & wanting to rekindle the happiness of sitting in smokey Odeons of my boyhood. Multiplexes just don't cut it somehow these days.

I'll have to temper my waffle to specific threads as I could drone on about any number of Bond-related themes for hours. And have bored many friends in pubs doing so!

Enjoy the Olympic opening ceremony (if that's your bag) & I hope Dan doesn't make a chump of himself jumping out of helicopters as is threatened. He may undo all the good of those cracking SKYFALL trailers.

Thunderpussy

Nothing wrong with Moonraker. I still get a kick out of it. And like yourself It
brings back so many memories of first seeing it. Same with Golden Gun One
of Moores better performances as Bond and a Great villian in C lee.
I'm sure at the olympics they'll do the old Bob Simmons trick of stunman
dropping behind a panel or something only to have Craig appear fixing
his cufflinks. )

chrisisall

BIG TAM wrote:

Thanks for the replies of welcome. I'm sure the congeniality will stop when I admit to MOONRAKER & THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN as being my Guilty Bond Pleasures.

You are dead to me.

BWAHAHAHahah, just kidding. My guilty pleasure is DAF, we all have them, do we not?

Welcome! I already like your insights quite a bit! -{

welshboy78

Welcome - great first post and I think you may have read my mind! )

thesecretagent

Welcome aboard! -{

But did you forget your password or something? I see you registered in 2010... )

Can't agree with you on Moonraker. Hateful. Great book though.

Sir Miles

BIG TAM wrote:

003. George Lazenby’s under-rated. I’m not a Fleming afficionado by any means but ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is simply the best marriage of character & spectacle. Some may prefer their Bond to be something of an enigma, but I like a bit of humanity added to 007’s arsenal.

Splendidly put {[]

Although you won't last long round these parts if you keep posting sensible opinions like these )

Welcome to AJB -{

Napoleon Plural

Pierce was the commercial second coming, as seen by the gross for GE. He was in other ways too, he was good on the chat show circuit whereas Craig is awkward (so was Connery actually). Brozzer could do humour, as saving grace of the series while Dalton couldn't and imo that killed his Bond. But yes, Brozzer wasn't given good films really, the producers' fault.

BIG TAM

I can see that Brosnan was certainly the heir apparent in 1995. I remember seeing him play the ruthless KGB killer in THE FOURTH PROTOCOL in '87 & thinking how he could really shake the series up, but when finally he got his chance chose to play it safe, much like the film itself. That's why for me Dalton & LICENCE TO KILL is the braver combination, deserving credit for at least attempting something different within the confines of the Bond bubble.
I'm in danger of making this sound like a Brosnan slag-off which is not actually my stance on the chap. Perhaps my love of the underdog (& for me Lazenby, Dalton & Craig are exactly that) makes me less inclined to cheer Brosnan who had it all handed on a plate.
His post-Bond mind-changing - one minute feeling set free from the shackles of Bond, the next bemoaning not having had the chance to do a fifth film - also became wearying in interviews.
But perhaps I'm being churlish. Brosnan & his films were successful enough to perpetuate the series, attracting a whole new generation of fans & I can't knock him for that.

Thunderpussy

It seems from another thread that "Goldeneye " Brought many fans in to Bond. I remember
Thinking it was Brilliant ( still think it's the best Brosnan Bond ).
Although I think after LTK, they decided to Play safe and make a fairly contemporary Bond
but with all the classic touches. Sadly I wouldn't put all the blame on Brosnan, I've read he wanted
to strech the character but the "Team" didn't want to take too many chances.
I too don't want to slag-off Brosnan ( I thought he was very Good ) but he didn't get the greatest
scripts.
Mabey that's why the Producers have given DC so much imput in to his Bonds, and seem to have
made a point of getting Better scripts ( QOS being an exception ) and are taking chances with Bond.
Having him do different things to what some of us are used to.

BIG TAM

The film-makers do undoubtedly get off lightly when we pass judgement on the various actors who've played Bond. Actors can only do so much. I read where Connery wanted more input aside from just the odd one-liner here & there. Barbara Broccoli does appear less autocratic than her Dad & seems to like Daniel Craig's involvement on a creative level.

CmdrAtticus

Welcome Big Tam. Total agreement with you on your last entry. It's easy to bash actors when it comes to a films quality, but with this series one really has to place a lot of blame on the producers. They honestly tried to stay true to Fleming's spirit in the first three films because he was still alive (though he passed while they were making Goldfinger). After he was gone, they knew they had free reign and could concentrate on the marketing of the character and getting as much box office out of it as they could. Certainly the choice of directors also affected the quality, but for most of the series it was story by committee, with an eye always on the $$$. Well, we know what happens to things produced by committees.
At least Wilson and Barbara are trying to get back to Fleming's spirit, and that's why I'm actually glad the Bourne and other action films up the ante in quality - it forced them to get back to the nitty gritty.

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

They honestly tried to stay true to Fleming's spirit in the first three films because he was still alive (though he passed while they were making Goldfinger). After he was gone, they knew they had free reign and could concentrate on the marketing of the character and getting as much box office out of it as they could.

According to this very professional graph, they flirt with crossing into too light in intervals... My forecast is acceptable Skyfall, then an attack of the too-light syndrome again.

Blackleiter

I sure hope you're wrong about the future after Skyfall. Nice graph, though!

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

They honestly tried to stay true to Fleming's spirit in the first three films because he was still alive (though he passed while they were making Goldfinger). After he was gone, they knew they had free reign and could concentrate on the marketing of the character and getting as much box office out of it as they could.

According to this very professional graph, they flirt with crossing into too light in intervals... My forecast is acceptable Skyfall, then an attack of the too-light syndrome again.

Thunderpussy

Moonraker seems so high up, It must of Been Out of this World. )
"Don't go into the Light, stay away from the light Moonraker. "

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

"Don't go into the Light, stay away from the light Moonraker. "

OMG, I NEVER expected a Poltergeist ref here!!! ) ) )

Thunderpussy

Just like the Spanish Inquisition People never EXPECT a Poltergeist Ref.

CmdrAtticus

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

They honestly tried to stay true to Fleming's spirit in the first three films because he was still alive (though he passed while they were making Goldfinger). After he was gone, they knew they had free reign and could concentrate on the marketing of the character and getting as much box office out of it as they could.

According to this very professional graph, they flirt with crossing into too light in intervals... My forecast is acceptable Skyfall, then an attack of the too-light syndrome again.

I hope it won't happen. I supposed it will have to do with whether Craig continues and how well SKYFALL does. Looking back on the levity level of Goldinger, I enjoyed it, but I still prefer the level that the first two and LTK and CR sit on.

Napoleon Plural

Hmm, some of the stunts I've half noticed in SF seem to be a tad OTT, but shall say no more with other fans wanting to avoid spoilers. Could be a snag as Craig's Bond is meant to be rooted in reality.

welshboy78

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Hmm, some of the stunts I've half noticed in SF seem to be a tad OTT, but shall say no more with other fans wanting to avoid spoilers. Could be a snag as Craig's Bond is meant to be rooted in reality.

Well to be fair in QoS that swinging around on ropes and pulleys scene was ridiculous hence nothing new really!

chrisisall

welshboy78 wrote:

Well to be fair in QoS that swinging around on ropes and pulleys scene was ridiculous hence nothing new really!

Hahah, I thought I was the only one that found that moment too over the top!