I've not read any of the books (except LALD many years ago), I'm just not a reader, but I still enjoyed Dalton's portrayal of bond. (Although I still prefer Moore)
Sherlock Holmes is a good example!
The Sherlock TV series is highly successful and I enjoy watching it and I did read the books.
Is that Sherlock figure faithful to the books? Hell no, but who really cares with the exception of some borderline fundamentalists?
Okay Higgins, I'll say you made your point well there. {[]
But there is a fundamental difference between some of the takes on Bond, and although I like them all, the hero super-agent thing is just TOO easy to do, and even easier to lampoon. Look at two of my favourites: YOLT & TND... they appeal to my 'majority side' if you will. The super agent in the midst of fantastic events. But my more mature, 'minority side' also REALLY likes the conflicted, uneasy Bond of DN, FRWL, TND, LTK, CR & QOS. The more complicated Bond of the movies is also the more literary Bond. And even if no one viewing a Bond movie EVER read a Fleming novel, it doesn't matter because the literary character complications that seep into the cinematic version simply make the more human character inherently more interesting than the watered down superhero.
Sorry, but this is too complicated and too radical.
Moviegoers Bond or tv viewers Sherlock want interesting stories and be entertained.
Wheter these come directly from the literary roots or from someone else is pretty irrelevant to them - read they don't care if the figure is faithful - they want a good movie! Period!
What I don't like are pseudo-universal statements that it only counts that major literary elements are faithfully transferred to the screen. That may be topical for some diehard Nerds but these are absolutely irrelevent compared to the other viewers.
Putting your money to please these diehards is a bad choice and let me add that me old fart is also not part of their key audience anymore.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sadly I do believe Higgins is right, to some extent. The key audience (the "demographic" if you like) goes for the big event movies/TV series because of relentless marketing, word of mouth, peer group pressure, etc. That's why movies such as "Transformers" get made and make money.
Art doesn't enter into it.
I'm not saying this is right- far from it- but it's the way it is. In Bond's case, SF was the right movie at the right time for those reasons hence its huge success.
Edit- for what it's worth, I've read all the Holmes stories, all the Bond books, and most of Verne and Wells.
I too agree with Higgins ( the planets must have aligned, for dark forces) the films
Are made for the largest audiences. " Bums on seats" that's who the films are made
For. Not small groups of expert fans.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
{[] Higgins pops open a bottle of beer now that everyone on AJB realizes how right he is - always
Just to add: I've read all the novels and never cared in which degree they reflected in the movies.
2 different worlds and if I discover something - I am a happy camper.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Good discussion here fellas. This is a point I often debate. Connery WAS Bond and the series needed a departure/reinvention of the character and they needed an established name to continue the series. With the Persuaders not being renewed it was the right person at the right place at the right time. EON, Moore, and audiences all benefited from this luck. He might not have been the ONLY person who could have followed in Connery's footsteps, but what he did in LALD and his subsequent run is very underrated by the modern film audience member.
Good discussion here fellas. This is a point I often debate. Connery WAS Bond and the series needed a departure/reinvention of the character and they needed an established name to continue the series. With the Persuaders not being renewed it was the right person at the right place at the right time. EON, Moore, and audiences all benefited from this luck. He might not have been the ONLY person who could have followed in Connery's footsteps, but what he did in LALD and his subsequent run is very overrated by the modern film audience member.
Sir Rog was one of the early contenders for the role but EON thought he was too young back in '62. He was also due to take the role in '71 before Lew Grade committed him to The Persuaders. So it wasn't a case that he got lucky at the right time... He was definitely the right man for the. Job.
Sir Rog was one of the early contenders for the role but EON thought he was too young back in '62. He was also due to take the role in '71 before Lew Grade committed him to The Persuaders. So it wasn't a case that he got lucky at the right time... He was definitely the right man for the. Job.
Moore himself denied the Rumor that he was considered for Bond as early as 62.
I see that all the Beer is gone
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Good discussion here fellas. This is a point I often debate. Connery WAS Bond and the series needed a departure/reinvention of the character and they needed an established name to continue the series. With the Persuaders not being renewed it was the right person at the right place at the right time. EON, Moore, and audiences all benefited from this luck. He might not have been the ONLY person who could have followed in Connery's footsteps, but what he did in LALD and his subsequent run is very overrated by the modern film audience member.
Do you really mean "over"rated??
Whoops. Must have been getting a little tired, thanks for catching that
Yes I do think that modern audiences underrate both Moore and Brosnan. No one should take for granted what they did. Besides the first three films which started the series, the most crucial/critical breaking points in the series were LALD and GE. If either flubbed, that was it for the series. I do think CR was a third albeit slightly lesser breaking point as well.
Sir Rog was one of the early contenders for the role but EON thought he was too young back in '62. He was also due to take the role in '71 before Lew Grade committed him to The Persuaders. So it wasn't a case that he got lucky at the right time... He was definitely the right man for the. Job.
Moore himself denied the Rumor that he was considered for Bond as early as 62.
I see that all the Beer is gone
62..... I thought that was his age when he started in LALD )
And even gave two of his best performances (FYEO, OP) toward the end of his tenure, in my opinion.
I agree. {[]
From the biggest RM fans to Blackleiter, I've noticed that many AJBers rate FYEO and OP as the highest. I find this interesting since Roger looked much younger and more believable in the first 4 films. Obviously that's not the only factor, but it a large reason why I rank all of the first 4 higher than FYEO and OP.
And for those who praise FYEO and OP, why so harsh on Moore's age in AVTAK? I mean if you're willing to let it slide on the other two…
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Huge Moore fan here and I enjoy all seven of his entries. But AVTAK is noticeably worse in my view. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being young and 10 being geriatric I give the following marks:
Something with Moore's hair in 8 makes him look a lot worse. I actually think he looks more fit and believable in OP. AVTAK though, his eyes are sunken and his hair goes back to bad for most of the movie. I am able to roll with it because the rest of the film is so weird and quirky.
Comments
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Get them read by Higgins and you will be asleep in no time -{
But there is a fundamental difference between some of the takes on Bond, and although I like them all, the hero super-agent thing is just TOO easy to do, and even easier to lampoon. Look at two of my favourites: YOLT & TND... they appeal to my 'majority side' if you will. The super agent in the midst of fantastic events. But my more mature, 'minority side' also REALLY likes the conflicted, uneasy Bond of DN, FRWL, TND, LTK, CR & QOS. The more complicated Bond of the movies is also the more literary Bond. And even if no one viewing a Bond movie EVER read a Fleming novel, it doesn't matter because the literary character complications that seep into the cinematic version simply make the more human character inherently more interesting than the watered down superhero.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Moviegoers Bond or tv viewers Sherlock want interesting stories and be entertained.
Wheter these come directly from the literary roots or from someone else is pretty irrelevant to them - read they don't care if the figure is faithful - they want a good movie! Period!
What I don't like are pseudo-universal statements that it only counts that major literary elements are faithfully transferred to the screen. That may be topical for some diehard Nerds but these are absolutely irrelevent compared to the other viewers.
Putting your money to please these diehards is a bad choice and let me add that me old fart is also not part of their key audience anymore.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Art doesn't enter into it.
I'm not saying this is right- far from it- but it's the way it is. In Bond's case, SF was the right movie at the right time for those reasons hence its huge success.
Edit- for what it's worth, I've read all the Holmes stories, all the Bond books, and most of Verne and Wells.
Even Miss Marple is getting a " make over" for a new audience. 8-)
A martial arts, bikini wearing, gun toting kick ass, Miss Marple !
Are made for the largest audiences. " Bums on seats" that's who the films are made
For. Not small groups of expert fans.
Just to add: I've read all the novels and never cared in which degree they reflected in the movies.
2 different worlds and if I discover something - I am a happy camper.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The same with the Books and Films. Happy with both.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But when you are wrong you are wrong big time.
Dalton was great. Like early Connery or Craig great.
But despite your Timboy hate & your offensive trainers we love you anyway. :x
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Do you really mean "over"rated??
Oh, I really have no "hate" for Timboys.
"Lack of understading" to "Disgust" would put it better
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Moore himself denied the Rumor that he was considered for Bond as early as 62.
I see that all the Beer is gone
Whoops. Must have been getting a little tired, thanks for catching that
Yes I do think that modern audiences underrate both Moore and Brosnan. No one should take for granted what they did. Besides the first three films which started the series, the most crucial/critical breaking points in the series were LALD and GE. If either flubbed, that was it for the series. I do think CR was a third albeit slightly lesser breaking point as well.
I agree. {[]
62..... I thought that was his age when he started in LALD
From the biggest RM fans to Blackleiter, I've noticed that many AJBers rate FYEO and OP as the highest. I find this interesting since Roger looked much younger and more believable in the first 4 films. Obviously that's not the only factor, but it a large reason why I rank all of the first 4 higher than FYEO and OP.
And for those who praise FYEO and OP, why so harsh on Moore's age in AVTAK? I mean if you're willing to let it slide on the other two…
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
LALD: 2
TMWTGG: 3
TSWLM: 4.5
MR: 5.5
FYEO: 7.5
OP: 7
AVTAK: 9
Something with Moore's hair in 8 makes him look a lot worse. I actually think he looks more fit and believable in OP. AVTAK though, his eyes are sunken and his hair goes back to bad for most of the movie. I am able to roll with it because the rest of the film is so weird and quirky.