That's probably why it's appreciated by most fans and ignored/not-watched generally by the public. Other than the film being exceptionally well made and written - I think the film and Lazenby also get a bit of the benefit of the doubt as it is a standalone.
A few of the odd-one-out Bond films like LALD, AVTAK, LTK have their groups of fans which adore their differences and amplify their appreciation for them.
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
I think it's intended to mean Bond films that differ a bit from the norm in terms of formula, tone, etc and tend to be polarizing as a result, but nevertheless have a devoted fan base.
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
I think it's intended to mean Bond films that differ a bit from the norm in terms of formula, tone, etc and tend to be polarizing as a result, but nevertheless have a devoted fan base.
Hmm fair enough.
I don't see LALD or AVTAK that way though, I find them both quite generic/usual (although excellent) bond films.
For me it would be OHMSS and LTK, easily. Then there's the 4 DC films, but they have each other.
I think it's intended to mean Bond films that differ a bit from the norm in terms of formula, tone, etc and tend to be polarizing as a result, but nevertheless have a devoted fan base.
Hmm fair enough.
I don't see LALD or AVTAK that way though, I find them both quite generic/usual (although excellent) bond films.
For me it would be OHMSS and LTK, easily. Then there's the 4 DC films, but they have each other.
The 4 DC films are all "odd one out" in their own ways, so they don't even have each other. Each one has a completely different tone.
I think it's intended to mean Bond films that differ a bit from the norm in terms of formula, tone, etc and tend to be polarizing as a result, but nevertheless have a devoted fan base.
I was going to point out QoS but by that definition, here it doesn't even have a devoted fan base.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think it's intended to mean Bond films that differ a bit from the norm in terms of formula, tone, etc and tend to be polarizing as a result, but nevertheless have a devoted fan base.
I was going to point out QoS but by that definition, here it doesn't even have a devoted fan base.
I've noticed after Spectre more people have been vocal about their fondness for QOS.
I don't see SF as an odd one out. I think it fits in perfectly with the first 20 Bond films. I see CR as an odd one out, because it doesn't feel like a Bond film.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
I like QoS because it is hard as nails and doesn't bother with the weak mummy/daddy issues that bog down CR/SF/SP. There's a small fan-base for it on here...
I like QoS because it is hard as nails and doesn't bother with the weak mummy/daddy issues that bog down CR/SF/SP. There's a small fan-base for it on here...
Yeah, QoS is great. The only issues with it are stylistic, but the rest is solid.
I like QoS because it is hard as nails and doesn't bother with the weak mummy/daddy issues that bog down CR/SF/SP. There's a small fan-base for it on here...
There are some of the mummy issues with Bond and M (M is too much of a mother to Bond in this film), and that's a problem for me. But I like that Craig seems more Bond-like in this film than he does in CR and SF, and that helps for me.
I like QoS because it is hard as nails and doesn't bother with the weak mummy/daddy issues that bog down CR/SF/SP. There's a small fan-base for it on here...
There are some of the mummy issues with Bond and M (M is too much of a mother to Bond in this film), and that's a problem for me. But I like that Craig seems more Bond-like in this film than he does in CR and SF, and that helps for me.
Comments
Yeah I think so
"Better make that two."
Indeed -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I think it's intended to mean Bond films that differ a bit from the norm in terms of formula, tone, etc and tend to be polarizing as a result, but nevertheless have a devoted fan base.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hmm fair enough.
I don't see LALD or AVTAK that way though, I find them both quite generic/usual (although excellent) bond films.
For me it would be OHMSS and LTK, easily. Then there's the 4 DC films, but they have each other.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
The 4 DC films are all "odd one out" in their own ways, so they don't even have each other. Each one has a completely different tone.
I was going to point out QoS but by that definition, here it doesn't even have a devoted fan base.
"Better make that two."
Yeah, QoS is great. The only issues with it are stylistic, but the rest is solid.
There are some of the mummy issues with Bond and M (M is too much of a mother to Bond in this film), and that's a problem for me. But I like that Craig seems more Bond-like in this film than he does in CR and SF, and that helps for me.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS