Why? What specifically do you have against the Walther P99?
It's not classic! I own both guns (in BB form) & the 99 is just too bulky! It's like the difference between the Trek TOS phaser, & the Trek V/VI Assault phaser; both are totally cool, but one is subtle whereas the other is a "in-your-face" statement.
And the 'once a year' joke is pretty funny, actually IMO.
I own both guns (in BB form) & the 99 is just too bulky!
In that case, your BB gun isn't a very good one. I have fired and am contemplating purchasing a Walther P99 as a carry gun. One important thing to note: I bet your BB gun doesn't come with the correctly-sized grip inserts (unless you bought the Crosman CP99). I likewise don't have a PPK, but have always despised the "webbing-cutter" backstrap every time I've fired one. On the other hand, I've also fired the Walther PP (a World War II bringback with capture papers that I would truly love to own) as well as the Walther PPK/S (Interarms 1970's version) and I find both ergonomically suited to me. I guess that means I have big hands. However, target acquisition with the P99 was much easier than with the PPK/S. Then again, I really liked the larger Walther PP (target acquisition would of course be easier than on the PPK/S; it has a longer slide).
The optimal gun for Bond if you're going for a mixture of classic and practical is probably a Colt Lightweight Commander in 9mm. However, it doesn't "fit" Bond in that, well, you expect Bond to carry some kind of European pistol as opposed to a 1911 derivative. A compact Glock would actually work extremely well if not for Bond's love of small calibers. And actually, that's probably the only place the P99 does fall down: it's a 9mm; Fleming made it very clear that Bond likes guns from about .25 ACP-.32 ACP in size. Giving Bond a Kel-Tec would be flat-out cheesy, and the SIG Sauer P290 is surprisingly clunky (Gun Tests magazine, in their latest issue, tested the P290RS and apparently gave it basically that summary in addition to a trigger that was too heavy; supposedly they measured it out at closeto 9 lbs.!).
Roger Moore could have been The Best Bond EVER!!! If He'd had more Shawn Fynn* put into the character and less Simon Templar.
*For those who don't know who Shawn Fynn is; go and find a movie called The Wild Geese, and pay attention to Roger Moore's character. It would have been a vastly grittier Moore Bond, just what Ian had in mind....
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Okay, now you're just messing with us, right? Even the hated Die Another Day wouldn't be compared to the unmitigated disaster that was the 1967 version of Casino Royale!
Nothing on a par with the parasurfing scene, admittedly. But it appears I'm in a minority. There are a couple of scenes quite reminscent of 67's CR in SF.
Nothing on a par with the parasurfing scene, admittedly. But it appears I'm in a minority. There are a couple of scenes quite reminscent of 67's CR in SF.
Roger Moore could have been The Best Bond EVER!!! If He'd had more Shawn Fynn* put into the character and less Simon Templar.
*For those who don't know who Shawn Fynn is; go and find a movie called The Wild Geese, and pay attention to Roger Moore's character. It would have been a vastly grittier Moore Bond, just what Ian had in mind....
I have seen it, and agree it's much better. Roger would still have lacked convincing physicality and looked terrible in any kind of action, particularly running or fisticuffs.
Roger Moore could have been The Best Bond EVER!!! If He'd had more Shawn Fynn* put into the character and less Simon Templar.
*For those who don't know who Shawn Fynn is; go and find a movie called The Wild Geese, and pay attention to Roger Moore's character. It would have been a vastly grittier Moore Bond, just what Ian had in mind....
I have seen it, and agree it's much better. Roger would still have lacked convincing physicality and looked terrible in any kind of action, particularly running or fisticuffs.
I don't mind kananga's death scene. It doesn't bother me they way it seems to bother others.
No blood though? Eight pints in an average body, and no shower or even small spray of it? ?:)
I'm not saying it was awesome. I'm just saying it was a quick shot and then a cut away. The blood splatter would have probably given it a more restrictive rating, but would have been cool. We have to just imagine in this case.
I feel that there are a diehard group who are entrenched in their preference and have a myopic prejudice to change. It seems a lot of time is spent debunking, scorning, ridiculing, point scoring and finding fault to bolster their stance regardless of whether anything is good or bad.
What I find unpalatable is the constant bashing of all the actors succeeding Connery and the minute ripping apart of their films Skyfall being the latest victim.
I think inherently the dice is loaded and weighted against all the actors that have followed Connery, there seems to be a tendency to gauge and mark Connery’s films against a different set of critiques/rules and the goal post is moved to accommodate any shortcomings. What is perceived as a cardinal sin for all the other actors and their films we overlook because his are what makes it a Bond film, looks cool, iconic, of their time, but Connery makes up for it, stylistic liberty is acceptable over content, that’s what makes it Bondian etc, this then becomes a plus and adds to rather than detract from his films, thus the myth remains intact.
Goldfinger is prime example of viewing the 60s with rose tinted glasses, isn’t Bond at his most inept, granny with the machine gun WTF, locked up pretty much most of the film, he is instrumental in the Masterson sisters getting killed, why knock him out and not kill him, why crush the car with the gold in it, was the trunk re-enforced for the weight. Bond turns (rapes) a lesbian and to foil Auric, the plan is for Galore to have an epiphany. When and where did Galore obtain the gas canisters to make the switch et al. Plot holes galore and James Bond at his best right 8-) .
You raise some good points, DCFAN. Although I would
say that some Connery Bonds get plenty of ridiculing.
NSNA, is loathed by many
DAF, also comes very low on most Fans list of Bond films.
YOLT, is regarded as fun but silly
and Thunderball is very long and can get a bit Boring in Places.
Sadly every actor will be compared to Connery as he was the first, Big screen Bond.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I agree some good points raised, DCFAN. I tend to believe Sean Connery is given a pass by many because he defined the role in those first four films which in turn set the template for the series.
Having said that, Connery and his films are not immune from criticism. As Thunderpussy stated, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever and Never Say Never Again are often criticised. I am certainly not alone in being critical of Connery's mainly non-performance in YOLT and his pale performance in NSNA. Others are critical of his performance in DAF, me less so.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Well criticisms against Connery are mild in comparison to the character assassinations meted out to the other actors. NSNA isn’t part of the EON cannon and was made to dump on the franchise.
Connery is the first, but he also lost interest and sleep walks through the latter films which is acknowledged by some and excused by others but he is still Teflon coated by the fanbase.
My biggest bug bear is the unfair lashing out at Moore, Brosnan, lazenby, Dalton and now Craig. All the Bonds have contributed to its successful 50 years history regardless of who we think is the best. There should be a little more credit and respect shown to acknowledge this and less pissing on the parade of one to build up another.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I suppose it's inevitable Connery will be held in such high esteem, even at the expense of the actors who've followed. I agree the criticisms aren't justified a lot of the time but we're all bound to differ, even though we share the one common love - a character named James Bond.
Let's take the latest chap, Daniel Craig. I have friends who like the Bonds of old who simply can't take to him. One even refuses to see SKYFALL point blank! I'm baffled but have given up letting it annoy me. I like Craig's persona & films. He's made a memorable mark on the series. If someone disagrees, will I stop watching his Bonds? Of course not! So be it is what I say. I'll still enjoy rewatching his films & will think wistfully of his time in the role when a new chap takes over.
So, I wouldn't worry about the non-Connery Bond bashing, DCFAN. I think Clint Eastwood said it best in SUDDEN IMPACT, "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one." )
Well, your mate seems rational. I mean, many Connery fans gave up when Moore came along, and fair play if it doesn't work for them. Sometimes you judge films on their own merits, not on the merits of the previous set of films. Same goes with Star Wars fans, some just can't hack the prequels, though admittedly they still did go to see them.
I'd argue that Connery is cut slack because his latter films, well he isn't blamed for them, it's the producers and their approach. Though I would blame him for NSNA cos he should have had some say on it really.
Well, your mate seems rational. I mean, many Connery fans gave up when Moore came along, and fair play if it doesn't work for them. Sometimes you judge films on their own merits, not on the merits of the previous set of films. Same goes with Star Wars fans, some just can't hack the prequels, though admittedly they still did go to see them.
I'd argue that Connery is cut slack because his latter films, well he isn't blamed for them, it's the producers and their approach. Though I would blame him for NSNA cos he should have had some say on it really.
If we can blame the producers for Connery why can't the other actors be treated in the same light. I have no desire to go on a Connery witch hunt, as fan sites seem to bring out the worst in people. Anonymity encourages and breed bad manners.
I think it's because Moore kind of had to play it for laughs... he didn't have the gravitas or range to be a serious Bond, whereas Connery could play it light and play it serious. So in that sense it's Moore's fault in his case, esp as he himself has admitted he never took the role seriously or researched it much, and made it a joke because he disapproved of him killing.
Same with Dalton. It is his fault that he can't deliver a one liner well. So they made LTK to accommodate that, but many like the oneliners Bond comes out with.
Brosnan - I agree it's unfair to be down on him because I think he had the material but they gave him bad scripts. He was like Moore but with a serious side and a bit more gravitas, more of an acting range.
I feel that there are a diehard group who are entrenched in their preference and have a myopic prejudice to change. It seems a lot of time is spent debunking, scorning, ridiculing, point scoring and finding fault to bolster their stance regardless of whether anything is good or bad.
If we didn't carp debunk and score points there'd be no fun at all
What I find unpalatable is the constant bashing of all the actors succeeding Connery and the minute ripping apart of their films Skyfall being the latest victim.
I think inherently the dice is loaded and weighted against all the actors that have followed Connery, there seems to be a tendency to gauge and mark Connery’s films against a different set of critiques/rules and the goal post is moved to accommodate any shortcomings. What is perceived as a cardinal sin for all the other actors and their films we overlook because his are what makes it a Bond film, looks cool, iconic, of their time, but Connery makes up for it, stylistic liberty is acceptable over content, that’s what makes it Bondian etc, this then becomes a plus and adds to rather than detract from his films, thus the myth remains intact.
Goldfinger is prime example of viewing the 60s with rose tinted glasses, isn’t Bond at his most inept, granny with the machine gun WTF, locked up pretty much most of the film, he is instrumental in the Masterson sisters getting killed, why knock him out and not kill him, why crush the car with the gold in it, was the trunk re-enforced for the weight. Bond turns (rapes) a lesbian and to foil Auric, the plan is for Galore to have an epiphany. When and where did Galore obtain the gas canisters to make the switch et al. Plot holes galore and James Bond at his best right 8-) .
I think it's because Moore kind of had to play it for laughs... he didn't have the gravitas or range to be a serious Bond, whereas Connery could play it light and play it serious. So in that sense it's Moore's fault in his case, esp as he himself has admitted he never took the role seriously or researched it much, and made it a joke because he disapproved of him killing.
Roger Moore certainly took the role seriously, if not what the character of Bond had become. Live And Let Die was his final shot at movie stardom and he wasn't going to blow it. He was hamstrung by Sean Connery's enormous shadow. They tried to make George Lazenby like Connery and failed. The tone of the films had become lighter so it made sense for Roger to steer clear of Connery and play more to his own strengths. That's not to say that he couldn't act tough convincingly. There's enough evidence throughout his Bond films, and in other films such as The Wild Geese. It's just that he could never be as convincingly tough as Connery. Very few actors could.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Eh? Who is writing the above from Zaphod and who is quoting?
And of course, many of us grew up with Connery and were less discerning as kids, everything was a plus. I went to a screening of TB at Empire Leicester Square just before CR came out and man it seemed ropey in a way I'd not noticed before.
Well, c'mon, okay Moore took his career thing seriously sure he knew it was his one shot at big time movies and he was getting on, but he didn't take the role seriously and he's on record as saying that. Others have observed that he is more Bond like in Gold and Geese, but he seems to have suggested that he was okay with those roles because we don't approve of the characters or they're not disreputable. Bond is an assassin though so he preferred to send it up as a joke. Okay, that's his take on it. Maybe it was an ego thing, with Connery's part hanging over him. Hmm, could have phrased that better.
Eh? Who is writing the above from Zaphod and who is quoting?
And of course, many of us grew up with Connery and were less discerning as kids, everything was a plus. I went to a screening of TB at Empire Leicester Square just before CR came out and man it seemed ropey in a way I'd not noticed before.
My bad Nap. I cocked up quoting DCFAN.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
My most controversial Bond opinion...?....
I actually LIKE the 1967 version of Casino Royale ;%
Comments
Why? What specifically do you have against the Walther P99? Or do you mean the FN P90 he briefly uses?
And the 'once a year' joke is pretty funny, actually IMO.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
In that case, your BB gun isn't a very good one. I have fired and am contemplating purchasing a Walther P99 as a carry gun. One important thing to note: I bet your BB gun doesn't come with the correctly-sized grip inserts (unless you bought the Crosman CP99). I likewise don't have a PPK, but have always despised the "webbing-cutter" backstrap every time I've fired one. On the other hand, I've also fired the Walther PP (a World War II bringback with capture papers that I would truly love to own) as well as the Walther PPK/S (Interarms 1970's version) and I find both ergonomically suited to me. I guess that means I have big hands. However, target acquisition with the P99 was much easier than with the PPK/S. Then again, I really liked the larger Walther PP (target acquisition would of course be easier than on the PPK/S; it has a longer slide).
The optimal gun for Bond if you're going for a mixture of classic and practical is probably a Colt Lightweight Commander in 9mm. However, it doesn't "fit" Bond in that, well, you expect Bond to carry some kind of European pistol as opposed to a 1911 derivative. A compact Glock would actually work extremely well if not for Bond's love of small calibers. And actually, that's probably the only place the P99 does fall down: it's a 9mm; Fleming made it very clear that Bond likes guns from about .25 ACP-.32 ACP in size. Giving Bond a Kel-Tec would be flat-out cheesy, and the SIG Sauer P290 is surprisingly clunky (Gun Tests magazine, in their latest issue, tested the P290RS and apparently gave it basically that summary in addition to a trigger that was too heavy; supposedly they measured it out at closeto 9 lbs.!).
*For those who don't know who Shawn Fynn is; go and find a movie called The Wild Geese, and pay attention to Roger Moore's character. It would have been a vastly grittier Moore Bond, just what Ian had in mind....
-Mr Arlington Beech
1967's Casino Royale.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Nothing on a par with the parasurfing scene, admittedly. But it appears I'm in a minority. There are a couple of scenes quite reminscent of 67's CR in SF.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I have seen it, and agree it's much better. Roger would still have lacked convincing physicality and looked terrible in any kind of action, particularly running or fisticuffs.
What I find unpalatable is the constant bashing of all the actors succeeding Connery and the minute ripping apart of their films Skyfall being the latest victim.
I think inherently the dice is loaded and weighted against all the actors that have followed Connery, there seems to be a tendency to gauge and mark Connery’s films against a different set of critiques/rules and the goal post is moved to accommodate any shortcomings. What is perceived as a cardinal sin for all the other actors and their films we overlook because his are what makes it a Bond film, looks cool, iconic, of their time, but Connery makes up for it, stylistic liberty is acceptable over content, that’s what makes it Bondian etc, this then becomes a plus and adds to rather than detract from his films, thus the myth remains intact.
Goldfinger is prime example of viewing the 60s with rose tinted glasses, isn’t Bond at his most inept, granny with the machine gun WTF, locked up pretty much most of the film, he is instrumental in the Masterson sisters getting killed, why knock him out and not kill him, why crush the car with the gold in it, was the trunk re-enforced for the weight. Bond turns (rapes) a lesbian and to foil Auric, the plan is for Galore to have an epiphany. When and where did Galore obtain the gas canisters to make the switch et al. Plot holes galore and James Bond at his best right 8-) .
say that some Connery Bonds get plenty of ridiculing.
NSNA, is loathed by many
DAF, also comes very low on most Fans list of Bond films.
YOLT, is regarded as fun but silly
and Thunderball is very long and can get a bit Boring in Places.
Sadly every actor will be compared to Connery as he was the first, Big screen Bond.
Having said that, Connery and his films are not immune from criticism. As Thunderpussy stated, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever and Never Say Never Again are often criticised. I am certainly not alone in being critical of Connery's mainly non-performance in YOLT and his pale performance in NSNA. Others are critical of his performance in DAF, me less so.
Connery is the first, but he also lost interest and sleep walks through the latter films which is acknowledged by some and excused by others but he is still Teflon coated by the fanbase.
My biggest bug bear is the unfair lashing out at Moore, Brosnan, lazenby, Dalton and now Craig. All the Bonds have contributed to its successful 50 years history regardless of who we think is the best. There should be a little more credit and respect shown to acknowledge this and less pissing on the parade of one to build up another.
Let's take the latest chap, Daniel Craig. I have friends who like the Bonds of old who simply can't take to him. One even refuses to see SKYFALL point blank! I'm baffled but have given up letting it annoy me. I like Craig's persona & films. He's made a memorable mark on the series. If someone disagrees, will I stop watching his Bonds? Of course not! So be it is what I say. I'll still enjoy rewatching his films & will think wistfully of his time in the role when a new chap takes over.
So, I wouldn't worry about the non-Connery Bond bashing, DCFAN. I think Clint Eastwood said it best in SUDDEN IMPACT, "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one."
I'd argue that Connery is cut slack because his latter films, well he isn't blamed for them, it's the producers and their approach. Though I would blame him for NSNA cos he should have had some say on it really.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
If we can blame the producers for Connery why can't the other actors be treated in the same light. I have no desire to go on a Connery witch hunt, as fan sites seem to bring out the worst in people. Anonymity encourages and breed bad manners.
Same with Dalton. It is his fault that he can't deliver a one liner well. So they made LTK to accommodate that, but many like the oneliners Bond comes out with.
Brosnan - I agree it's unfair to be down on him because I think he had the material but they gave him bad scripts. He was like Moore but with a serious side and a bit more gravitas, more of an acting range.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore certainly took the role seriously, if not what the character of Bond had become. Live And Let Die was his final shot at movie stardom and he wasn't going to blow it. He was hamstrung by Sean Connery's enormous shadow. They tried to make George Lazenby like Connery and failed. The tone of the films had become lighter so it made sense for Roger to steer clear of Connery and play more to his own strengths. That's not to say that he couldn't act tough convincingly. There's enough evidence throughout his Bond films, and in other films such as The Wild Geese. It's just that he could never be as convincingly tough as Connery. Very few actors could.
And of course, many of us grew up with Connery and were less discerning as kids, everything was a plus. I went to a screening of TB at Empire Leicester Square just before CR came out and man it seemed ropey in a way I'd not noticed before.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
My bad Nap. I cocked up quoting DCFAN.
I actually LIKE the 1967 version of Casino Royale ;%
Pfft! That's nothing! I like "Manos" The Hands of Fate (google it) and believe it to be hilarious (albeit not on purpose).