"Just saw it tonight..it's about as slow as FRWL but way more entertaining...
Yes...those bloody old movies are so bloody slowww. Take too much time building characters we can care about and don't have enough action. The screenwriter's total invention of the plot and dialogue is - of course - way more entertaining that anything like FRWL...which was one of Fleming's best novels.
I'm sorry, fellow members, really..I am. I do feel sad for anyone who watch the early Bond's and any old movie and bemoan their "slow" pacing.
Whatever you do, don't ever try to sit through films like the Ipcress File or Funeral in Berlin or The Third Man..you'll just end up using the fast forward button a lot.
I really understand having different likes and dislikes about anything, and I will be the first to stand and say that the novel of TMWTGG was not Fleming's best work of his series - though I give him a lot of slack since he was not well when he did it and even died before turning in a final manuscript. However, it's still miles away from a great deal of the twaddle that's passed as spy fiction over the years (on page or in the cinema).
It's just a true waste that it wasn't really filmed. I do understand the entertainment value of the Moore outing to many - and there are some creative bits here and there. Just think the producers and director really wasted a "golden" opportunity.
Yes...those bloody old movies are so bloody slowww.
I don't mind slow movies, I just can't deal with that hat Bond was wearing in the helicopter scene... X-(
It's interesting about that hat. They made a thing about it in the old films - when he arrives in Moneypenny's office and flings it on the rack.
However, I don't seem to recall the novel Bond wearing any, even though Fleming had a homburg (though it was said that he carried it more often than wore it).
"Just saw it tonight..it's about as slow as FRWL but way more entertaining...
Yes...those bloody old movies are so bloody slowww. Take too much time building characters we can care about and don't have enough action. The screenwriter's total invention of the plot and dialogue is - of course - way more entertaining that anything like FRWL...which was one of Fleming's best novels.
I'm sorry, fellow members, really..I am. I do feel sad for anyone who watch the early Bond's and any old movie and bemoan their "slow" pacing.
Whatever you do, don't ever try to sit through films like the Ipcress File or Funeral in Berlin or The Third Man..you'll just end up using the fast forward button a lot.
I really understand having different likes and dislikes about anything,.
I shouldn't have used the word slow..maybe boring is what i meant with FRWL & some parts of TMWTGG(I still love both films but time has changed some opinions). Its all about likes and dislikes as you say..I love the Ipcress File & Third man but find Funeral in Berlin boring. My favorite movie of all time is Barry Lyndon you can't get slower than that..maybe 2001 and I find those movies exciting and fascinating. So it has nothing to do with old movies cuz thats pretty much all i watch now. -{ -{
"Just saw it tonight..it's about as slow as FRWL but way more entertaining...
Yes...those bloody old movies are so bloody slowww. Take too much time building characters we can care about and don't have enough action. The screenwriter's total invention of the plot and dialogue is - of course - way more entertaining that anything like FRWL...which was one of Fleming's best novels.
I'm sorry, fellow members, really..I am. I do feel sad for anyone who watch the early Bond's and any old movie and bemoan their "slow" pacing.
Whatever you do, don't ever try to sit through films like the Ipcress File or Funeral in Berlin or The Third Man..you'll just end up using the fast forward button a lot.
I really understand having different likes and dislikes about anything,.
I shouldn't have used the word slow..maybe boring is what i meant with FRWL & some parts of TMWTGG(I still love both films but time has changed some opinions). Its all about likes and dislikes as you say..I love the Ipcress File & Third man but find Funeral in Berlin boring. My favorite movie of all time is Barry Lyndon you can't get slower than that..maybe 2001 and I find those movies exciting and fascinating. So it has nothing to do with old movies cuz thats pretty much all i watch now. -{ -{
Heavens! Forgot about Barry Lyndon...saw it in the theater and was expecting another great Kubrick film. Ryan O'Neil. I mean....Ryan O'Neil? The cinematography was stunning and realistic (as was the set design/costuming), but the combination of O'Neil's weak presence and limpid acting along with the slooooowww pace made it a real challenge to me to stay in my seat. It was like looking at a beautiful classical painting..and it seemed to be just as static. Needless to say, time and repeated moments of viewing (for only a few minutes) when it's been broadcast has not improved on it for me.
I watched TMWTGG again recently on streaming. Lovely restoration job. I'd forgotten how cold-blooded Bond seems in the hotel when he meets Anders. Pouring the champagne and saying with icy determination, "And I want him there." It's another of these films where Bond kind of bumbles his way through, but hey -- at least Moore didn't look like grandpa or a greepy perv uncle yet.
No, a much more plausible way would be to nick one of his golden bullets, etch 007 in it, get his fingerprints on a note and send it to MI6 to get Bond somehow going after your lover to kill him and at your first encounter with Bond say absolutely nothing about your plan....
I have been pondering this recently…why didn't Andrea mention her plan after stepping out of the shower? She risked her arm getting broken to stay silent.
Here's my theory: She was worried that if Bond found out it was a hoax, he would have no reason to pursue and kill Scaramanga. By playing it straight, Bond still thought the threat was genuine. Later, after the Gibson assassination outside the club, Bond began to suspect that Scaramanga did not want to kill him after-all.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
With regards to the Scene with Bond slapping Andrea, they were still writing Scripts with Connery in Mind -{
So Connery gets credit for when Moore is being "rough" ?
Fans who claim that Moore brought a "lighter, friendlier" Bond, obviously weren't paying attention during TMWTGG. It was actually not until Octopussy do we see Moore goof around a bit.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I used to think this film was a decent-enough entry, but meh, it's gone down for me. Sorry TMWTGG fans.
Jarvio, It's kinda funny how we have such different taste in the Roger Moore era. We're both fans obviously, but where you pick LALD I prefer TMWTGG. You have FYEO & OP in your top 5, but I have TSWLM & MR instead. Our only common ground is that AVTAK rules. -{
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I watched TMWTGG again recently on streaming. Lovely restoration job. I'd forgotten how cold-blooded Bond seems in the hotel when he meets Anders.
Moore could actually play a pretty tough Bond. Also in TMWTGG when he points the rifle at the bullet maker's groin, he's a cold blooded SOB.
Good ol' Uncle Rog was always dismissed as being lightweight in the acting and toughness categories when it came to Bond.
On closer examination, one finds that Roger delivered superb moments of acting and a genuine sense of blue-eyed menace.
Two quick examples in TMWTGG. During the dinner scene, Bond confesses that it would be a pleasure to kill his host Scaramanga.
Every different 007 could have played that line as well but what gives the moment an extra charge is that Roger's take on Bond has always been to downplay the sadism that is an inherent component of Bond's true character.
Whenever Roger tapped into his darker side the results were wondrous. For you see, when Roger Moore COMMITTED to the text rather than to the tongue firmly planted in his cheek, he delivered the ultimate expression of Bond's duality: the suave exterior and ruthless interior.
All the 5 other Bonds were, by virtue of their looks, seen as darker personalities. Roger's Bond has always come across as happy-go-lucky compared to the others. And that has always been his take on the role and the reason his Bond has always come across as sociopathic when examined more closely.
That lightness and charm in his personality is what defines his interpretation. So whenever you have a moment like when he takes aim at Lazar's groin and says "Speak now or forever hold your piece.", one is reminded of how good an actor Roger is and how easily he can tap into the ruthlessness of Bond.
Roger sold himself short as an actor and the EON team played a little too loose with his films. They should have kept him on his toes, leaner and meaner, and, quite frankly, supported him better in creating the illusion he was tougher.
Check out the best fight in Roger's tenure: the dressing room brawl in TMWTGG. Does it stand up to the heavyweight bouts by the other Bonds? No. But it is an example of Roger fighting down and dirty with an agility that Peter Hunt in his OHMSS days would have cranked up to convince us that Sir Rog is a seriously bad dude.
There is a scene in The Wild Geese where he forces a drug dealer to eat heroin that would have been legendary in Bond circles if he had a comparable scene in the series.
What we get with Roger is a man and actor who was more than capable of making his 007 as respected as Connery's but chose to only dip his toe in the darker waters of Fleming's character and, in the process, lay himself open to criticism which could have been avoided.
It saddens me to read the easy dismissal by some of Roger's Bond. His charm, intelligence and sense of suave have set a standard for 007 that has rarely been reached. What was missing was his willingness to tap into the killer instinct more frequently and more emphatically.
As Virgil said, he can be a cold-blooded SOB. Roger's 007 was all that...and more. With a smile.
"Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors. The list is endless."
I really love TMWTGG. For all the reasons above.
Yes, there are a lot of crap moments, and Goodnight IS a 70's ditz, but overall it's a definite crowd(of one)pleaser!
What we get with Roger is a man and actor who was more than capable of making his 007 as respected as Connery's but chose to only dip his toe in the darker waters of Fleming's character and, in the process, lay himself open to criticism which could have been avoided.
Well written article. -{ Personally, I suspect that adding comic relief characters like JW Peppers is the main culprit for inviting criticism that could have been easily avoided. The only thing that bothers me about Moore's Bond is he possesses too much knowledge. He must have a photographic memory to recall a nearly complete dossier on Scaramanga in M's office.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Bond: "Exposition sir? Narrative exposition, or simply exposition, is expository writing in narrative contexts such as history or fiction, especially in order to introduce important background information within a story; for example, information about the setting, characters' back-stories, context, etc. Exposition is one of four rhetorical modes ,also known as modes of discourse, along with description, argumentation, and narration, as elucidated by Alexander Bain and John Genung. Each of the rhetorical modes is present in a variety of forms and each has its own purpose and conventions."
M: "Refreshing to see there are subjects you are not an expert on."
Roger sold himself short as an actor and the EON team played a little too loose with his films. They should have kept him on his toes, leaner and meaner, and, quite frankly, supported him better in creating the illusion he was tougher.
The major mistake that people make is not to put the movies into the perspective of the time, when they where hitting the market.
The 70s and 80s have been totally different to the 60s where people went to the cinema to see a Hitchcock thriller because there was no TV.
70s and 80s brought these straight played things on tv and cinema had to be bigger and better than that and EON catered that desire with immense success for TSWLM and Moonraker.
A great movie like FRWL or maybe even something like SF or CR may have failed back then because they did not "pop" enough for the time.
Being faithful to Fleming may have ended the series in that climate and people today constantly blame the more entertaining Moore and Brosnan movies for just being that: Entertainment to bring audiences to the cinema!
Times have changed and audiences have accepted the more faithful to Fleming direction in the Craig movies but it's unfair to put that benchmark to movies that have been made in a time where the audiences wanted something totally different and EOn highly successfully catered these audiences.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I remember watching Moonraker way back in 79 and NO one
I spoke to, had anything but praise for it. I was a teen in love
With Science Fiction, so loved the whole space scenes. In fact
Many films of 79 etc had Space themes, it was very big back then.
Who knows in a future decade, all the realism of today may also
Be looked on as " embarrassing " and not at all fantastic as that
Style may once again be in fashion.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Yep, and only guys like myself will never be "out of fashion"
On a different note, I find some of Flemings novels in parts very embarrasing and critics in the 70s and 80s did not put them into a positive light. For example TMWTGG I find pretty boring, YOLT pretty weird (but with good parts) - of course OHMSS and CR are jewels!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As I have said many times before, I believe Roger Moore's significantly lighter touch as Bond was precisely what EON wanted at the time, and I believe that for the most part it went over well with audiences. Moore's movies are very entertaining for what they are, mainly fantastical adventure stories with some humorous aspects thrown in. But to me Moore is just not believable as Bond in the way that the other actors who have portrayed the character are. His jokey, winky moments are too frequent, his physical limitations are too obvious, and notwithstanding an exception here and there, overall he fails to project the sense of danger and menance that I have come to associate with 007 based on the novels and the interpretations of other actors such as Connery, Dalton, Craig and even Lazenby. Some take my criticisms as Roger Moore hate, but that is not my intention. Moore is obviously a consumate professional and a fine actor, but every actor is not right for every role. In my opinion, Moore was not the right actor for Bond.
Watched TMWTGG again last night and I must say I was surprised with how many brutal and serious parts of the film were included as I'd always viewed it as one of Moore's lighter entries in the series. In fact the first half an hour or so stands toe to toe with the atmosphere and tone of some of Connery's best work. It's a shame that large parts of the film are spoilt by some silly moments (flying cars, karate schoolgirls, J.W Pepper etc).
Comments
That would be a great entry in the Bond 24 title suggestions tread! -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes...those bloody old movies are so bloody slowww. Take too much time building characters we can care about and don't have enough action. The screenwriter's total invention of the plot and dialogue is - of course - way more entertaining that anything like FRWL...which was one of Fleming's best novels.
I'm sorry, fellow members, really..I am. I do feel sad for anyone who watch the early Bond's and any old movie and bemoan their "slow" pacing.
Whatever you do, don't ever try to sit through films like the Ipcress File or Funeral in Berlin or The Third Man..you'll just end up using the fast forward button a lot.
I really understand having different likes and dislikes about anything, and I will be the first to stand and say that the novel of TMWTGG was not Fleming's best work of his series - though I give him a lot of slack since he was not well when he did it and even died before turning in a final manuscript. However, it's still miles away from a great deal of the twaddle that's passed as spy fiction over the years (on page or in the cinema).
It's just a true waste that it wasn't really filmed. I do understand the entertainment value of the Moore outing to many - and there are some creative bits here and there. Just think the producers and director really wasted a "golden" opportunity.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It's interesting about that hat. They made a thing about it in the old films - when he arrives in Moneypenny's office and flings it on the rack.
However, I don't seem to recall the novel Bond wearing any, even though Fleming had a homburg (though it was said that he carried it more often than wore it).
I shouldn't have used the word slow..maybe boring is what i meant with FRWL & some parts of TMWTGG(I still love both films but time has changed some opinions). Its all about likes and dislikes as you say..I love the Ipcress File & Third man but find Funeral in Berlin boring. My favorite movie of all time is Barry Lyndon you can't get slower than that..maybe 2001 and I find those movies exciting and fascinating. So it has nothing to do with old movies cuz thats pretty much all i watch now. -{ -{
Heavens! Forgot about Barry Lyndon...saw it in the theater and was expecting another great Kubrick film. Ryan O'Neil. I mean....Ryan O'Neil? The cinematography was stunning and realistic (as was the set design/costuming), but the combination of O'Neil's weak presence and limpid acting along with the slooooowww pace made it a real challenge to me to stay in my seat. It was like looking at a beautiful classical painting..and it seemed to be just as static. Needless to say, time and repeated moments of viewing (for only a few minutes) when it's been broadcast has not improved on it for me.
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case
I have been pondering this recently…why didn't Andrea mention her plan after stepping out of the shower? She risked her arm getting broken to stay silent.
Here's my theory: She was worried that if Bond found out it was a hoax, he would have no reason to pursue and kill Scaramanga. By playing it straight, Bond still thought the threat was genuine. Later, after the Gibson assassination outside the club, Bond began to suspect that Scaramanga did not want to kill him after-all.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
"Slay it with flowers"
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
So Connery gets credit for when Moore is being "rough" ?
Fans who claim that Moore brought a "lighter, friendlier" Bond, obviously weren't paying attention during TMWTGG. It was actually not until Octopussy do we see Moore goof around a bit.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Jarvio, It's kinda funny how we have such different taste in the Roger Moore era. We're both fans obviously, but where you pick LALD I prefer TMWTGG. You have FYEO & OP in your top 5, but I have TSWLM & MR instead. Our only common ground is that AVTAK rules. -{
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Moore could actually play a pretty tough Bond. Also in TMWTGG when he points the rifle at the bullet maker's groin, he's a cold blooded SOB.
I don't think they were writing with Connery in mind, but it's true there was a transition phase. TSWLM would be the first true Moore film.
Good ol' Uncle Rog was always dismissed as being lightweight in the acting and toughness categories when it came to Bond.
On closer examination, one finds that Roger delivered superb moments of acting and a genuine sense of blue-eyed menace.
Two quick examples in TMWTGG. During the dinner scene, Bond confesses that it would be a pleasure to kill his host Scaramanga.
Every different 007 could have played that line as well but what gives the moment an extra charge is that Roger's take on Bond has always been to downplay the sadism that is an inherent component of Bond's true character.
Whenever Roger tapped into his darker side the results were wondrous. For you see, when Roger Moore COMMITTED to the text rather than to the tongue firmly planted in his cheek, he delivered the ultimate expression of Bond's duality: the suave exterior and ruthless interior.
All the 5 other Bonds were, by virtue of their looks, seen as darker personalities. Roger's Bond has always come across as happy-go-lucky compared to the others. And that has always been his take on the role and the reason his Bond has always come across as sociopathic when examined more closely.
That lightness and charm in his personality is what defines his interpretation. So whenever you have a moment like when he takes aim at Lazar's groin and says "Speak now or forever hold your piece.", one is reminded of how good an actor Roger is and how easily he can tap into the ruthlessness of Bond.
Roger sold himself short as an actor and the EON team played a little too loose with his films. They should have kept him on his toes, leaner and meaner, and, quite frankly, supported him better in creating the illusion he was tougher.
Check out the best fight in Roger's tenure: the dressing room brawl in TMWTGG. Does it stand up to the heavyweight bouts by the other Bonds? No. But it is an example of Roger fighting down and dirty with an agility that Peter Hunt in his OHMSS days would have cranked up to convince us that Sir Rog is a seriously bad dude.
There is a scene in The Wild Geese where he forces a drug dealer to eat heroin that would have been legendary in Bond circles if he had a comparable scene in the series.
What we get with Roger is a man and actor who was more than capable of making his 007 as respected as Connery's but chose to only dip his toe in the darker waters of Fleming's character and, in the process, lay himself open to criticism which could have been avoided.
It saddens me to read the easy dismissal by some of Roger's Bond. His charm, intelligence and sense of suave have set a standard for 007 that has rarely been reached. What was missing was his willingness to tap into the killer instinct more frequently and more emphatically.
As Virgil said, he can be a cold-blooded SOB. Roger's 007 was all that...and more. With a smile.
"Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors. The list is endless."
Yes, there are a lot of crap moments, and Goodnight IS a 70's ditz, but overall it's a definite crowd(of one)pleaser!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
+1
I doubt the EoN producers thought Connery was coming back for TMWTGG…
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Well written article. -{ Personally, I suspect that adding comic relief characters like JW Peppers is the main culprit for inviting criticism that could have been easily avoided. The only thing that bothers me about Moore's Bond is he possesses too much knowledge. He must have a photographic memory to recall a nearly complete dossier on Scaramanga in M's office.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Files to keep him up to date.
Bond: "Exposition sir? Narrative exposition, or simply exposition, is expository writing in narrative contexts such as history or fiction, especially in order to introduce important background information within a story; for example, information about the setting, characters' back-stories, context, etc. Exposition is one of four rhetorical modes ,also known as modes of discourse, along with description, argumentation, and narration, as elucidated by Alexander Bain and John Genung. Each of the rhetorical modes is present in a variety of forms and each has its own purpose and conventions."
M: "Refreshing to see there are subjects you are not an expert on."
The major mistake that people make is not to put the movies into the perspective of the time, when they where hitting the market.
The 70s and 80s have been totally different to the 60s where people went to the cinema to see a Hitchcock thriller because there was no TV.
70s and 80s brought these straight played things on tv and cinema had to be bigger and better than that and EON catered that desire with immense success for TSWLM and Moonraker.
A great movie like FRWL or maybe even something like SF or CR may have failed back then because they did not "pop" enough for the time.
Being faithful to Fleming may have ended the series in that climate and people today constantly blame the more entertaining Moore and Brosnan movies for just being that: Entertainment to bring audiences to the cinema!
Times have changed and audiences have accepted the more faithful to Fleming direction in the Craig movies but it's unfair to put that benchmark to movies that have been made in a time where the audiences wanted something totally different and EOn highly successfully catered these audiences.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I spoke to, had anything but praise for it. I was a teen in love
With Science Fiction, so loved the whole space scenes. In fact
Many films of 79 etc had Space themes, it was very big back then.
Who knows in a future decade, all the realism of today may also
Be looked on as " embarrassing " and not at all fantastic as that
Style may once again be in fashion.
On a different note, I find some of Flemings novels in parts very embarrasing and critics in the 70s and 80s did not put them into a positive light. For example TMWTGG I find pretty boring, YOLT pretty weird (but with good parts) - of course OHMSS and CR are jewels!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS