As an example of what the public think, on a radio talkshow. They were asked
The last question ( usually a bit light hearted) what is your favourite Bond
Film. All four members of the panel picked ............................ AVTAK. -{
Sir Roger is a national institution, and much loved. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The biggest change in the last ten years is the public's attitude towards the Bond franchise. The feeling prior to CR was that the Bond films were almost forty years past their prime, kind of stale, and a litle bit silly. You went to a Bond film if you were a. a hard core Bond fan; or b. you had nothing better to do.
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
The biggest change in the last ten years is the public's attitude towards the Bond franchise. The feeling prior to CR was that the Bond films were almost forty years past their prime, kind of stale, and a litle bit silly. You went to a Bond film if you were a. a hard core Bond fan; or b. you had nothing better to do.
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
100% agree.
Before Craig, it really seems like James Bond existed only to preserve a mold that was invented in the 60's. Not that the attitude of the later films was particularly wrong, but it seemed like it was a nostalgia trip to celebrate the experiences film-goers had in the 60's rather than create an entirely new blueprint like they did with Craig.
The biggest change in the last ten years is the public's attitude towards the Bond franchise. The feeling prior to CR was that the Bond films were almost forty years past their prime, kind of stale, and a litle bit silly. You went to a Bond film if you were a. a hard core Bond fan; or b. you had nothing better to do.
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
100% agree.
Before Craig, it really seems like James Bond existed only to preserve a mold that was invented in the 60's. Not that the attitude of the later films was particularly wrong, but it seemed like it was a nostalgia trip to celebrate the experiences film-goers had in the 60's rather than create an entirely new blueprint like they did with Craig.
This is not true for most people. As someone born a couple decades after the 60s, Bond was a pretty big part of my generation. For me it was a little nostalgia for the 1960s and 70s Bond films. For my friends who only liked Pierce Brosnan, it was a really cool film series that had some cool video games. GoldenEye had no nostalgia for the 1960s. It's was a completely modern action film that had little to do with the previous Bond films. People who were fans of the 60s Bond films didn't care for Brosnan's Bond. They were very successful films, so they couldn't have been drawing audiences purely on nostalgia.
The biggest change in the last ten years is the public's attitude towards the Bond franchise. The feeling prior to CR was that the Bond films were almost forty years past their prime, kind of stale, and a litle bit silly. You went to a Bond film if you were a. a hard core Bond fan; or b. you had nothing better to do.
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
100% agree.
Before CR tand LTK they had no direction. No impetus. They existed because they existed. And due to battles the Brosnan directors had - I could only think of them getting worse.
CR was a godsend. Babs pulled it back from the brink..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I don't understand this suddenly discovered Lazenby popularity thing. Lazenby has always been appreciated by Bond fans, nothing has changed since 1969 as far as he is concerned....
+1. Bond aficionados have always returned to OHMSS because it's such a brilliant film and Lazenby was a terrific Bond - don't forget, Connery having quit the series, who else would have been a good alternative? It's always been one of my two or three most watched Bonds and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.
I've noticed as the stock of OHMSS and Lazenby has risen over the years and Barry's score also adding to it's patina, along with casting of Rigg, few mention the fact it's an Ian Fleming story. I've always underlined that point in my view on the series - the best are either close adaptations of his work or use a lot of scenes and themes from them.
The biggest change in the last ten years is the public's attitude towards the Bond franchise. The feeling prior to CR was that the Bond films were almost forty years past their prime, kind of stale, and a little bit silly. You went to a Bond film if you were a. a hard core Bond fan; or b. you had nothing better to do.
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
100% agree.
Before Craig, it really seems like James Bond existed only to preserve a mould that was invented in the 60's. Not that the attitude of the later films was particularly wrong, but it seemed like it was a nostalgia trip to celebrate the experiences film-goers had in the 60's rather than create an entirely new blueprint like they did with Craig.
+1. Up until the reboot, the films had to follow the EON Holy Commandments of how to make a Bond film that were carved into them when they made GF:
1. Thou shalt not have a film without Bond saying "Bond, James Bond" and ordering
his martini and preferably doing it in a tuxedo.
2. Thou shalt not have a film without a megalomaniac villain with a weird henchman
who plans on trying to blackmail the world or destroy it , or at least extort it.
3. Thou shalt not have a film without Bond defeating the villain in some lair in the
third act by blowing it up.
4. Thou shalt not have a film without Q handing out his latest gadgets.
5. Thou shalt not have a film without a tricked out car - even if it's not an Aston.
6. Though shalt not have a film without a heroine with a bizarre name.
7. Though shalt not have a film without an ally being sacrificed.
8. Though shalt not have a film without having Bond captured or being attacked
and escaping using the gadgets Q had just given to him.
9. Though shalt not have a film without Bond using bad puns.
10. Though shalt not have a film without Bond ending up in the arms of the heroine
at the closing credits.
There are more of course, but those were the basic ones. GF was a media firestorm and made a ton of cash for EON, so they realized as long as they stuck with the commandments, they would always have a good profit. This created a huge sense of nostalgia over the decades because everyone always looked forward to seeing those commandments (let's call it the GF blueprint) with each new entry.
Brosnan made a big splash with GE because it had been so many years since AVTAK and everyone knew Roger was a bit long in the tooth for that one and the blueprint was starting to get dried out and dog earred. Now there was a new, younger actor (who most always thought should be the next Bond) and a new Bond film. For extra nostalgia they even brought back the DB5. Well it all seemed glorious and fun, and the general audience did not even notice (or care) that EON still used its commandments - and continued to use them. Then came 911 and the increase in terrorism and of darker, more morally imbalanced action films and suddenly DAD seemed like someone reading a very old well known dirty limerick at a funeral. Everyone knew it - and it was out of place. Also, one of the major things that hampered the series over the decades was the series ran out of Fleming's work. It was relying on small scenes picked out here and there from the novels to help keep at least the spirit of his work alive, but it was as though Fleming had build a series of wonderful, mysterious fun houses and when the writers had to continue building new ones, their end result were the type of Hollywood back lot homes that only had decorative facades and nothing else.
EON then got the rights to CR - an original Fleming fun house (and the very first one).
Not only could they reintroduce Bond as a character, but also the one from the novels - not the one they recreated, and with audiences now used to the darker, realistic tone of action films, this novel could be adapted very closely and just brought up to date.
Now, EON was not about to destroy their stone commandments of the old series - they had proven to birth solid cash cows. They just needed to bring them back slowly and at a different angle. So, they still had the martini (which was in the novel anyway), tuxedo (also in the novel), a nasty villain (though not a megalomaniac and no monstrous henchman - just a realistic, greedy nasty sadist), a heroine with still an unusual name but not a weird one, TWO Aston Martins (one for nostalgia - one for the reboot), no Q, no Moneypenny, but keep the old M just for some continuity (no matter how odd it seems), have Bond actually get wounded and hurt (wow we can do that now?) and the heroine ends up in Bonds arms but as a dead blackmailed traitor (heroine combined with sacrificed ally). Last but not least, keep the large action scenes from the old series including an explosive third act (but not the villain's lair and not with the help of dozens of allied commandos).
Not only did the reboot breathe fresh air into the stale series, it gave it new youth (with the help of a real Fleming funhouse). Unfortunately, the next films would have the writers once again trying to build their own versions of his funhouses by using leftover materials. QOS was built too quickly, so though there was more than a facade but the inside was still not finished. SF seemed like a Fleming fun house - it was pretty much all there but made to look worn out and about to crumble - supported by old solid framing - Q and Moneypenny brought back - but the old M is replaced along with MI6 new digs (even though temporary) - so by the time we got out of it and into the daylight we could see they were ready to build the next one.
Now we've had three new fun houses and are ready to go into the fourth with Craig. It's going to be made up of old materials (SPECTRE, Blofeld[?], a henchman, the Aston, Q, Moneypenny, big action pieces and globe trotting), but at least Bond will be in his new flat and we'll get to see him back in the bitter snow and there will be new things to jump out at us.
The biggest change in the last ten years is the public's attitude towards the Bond franchise. The feeling prior to CR was that the Bond films were almost forty years past their prime, kind of stale, and a litle bit silly. You went to a Bond film if you were a. a hard core Bond fan; or b. you had nothing better to do.
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
100% agree.
Before Craig, it really seems like James Bond existed only to preserve a mold that was invented in the 60's. Not that the attitude of the later films was particularly wrong, but it seemed like it was a nostalgia trip to celebrate the experiences film-goers had in the 60's rather than create an entirely new blueprint like they did with Craig.
This is not true for most people. As someone born a couple decades after the 60s, Bond was a pretty big part of my generation. For me it was a little nostalgia for the 1960s and 70s Bond films. For my friends who only liked Pierce Brosnan, it was a really cool film series that had some cool video games. GoldenEye had no nostalgia for the 1960s. It's was a completely modern action film that had little to do with the previous Bond films. People who were fans of the 60s Bond films didn't care for Brosnan's Bond. They were very successful films, so they couldn't have been drawing audiences purely on nostalgia.
The reference to the Brosnan era video games is telling. Video games are strong on explosions and machine guns and weak on narrative and characterization. Sort of like Brosnan's films.
While going all-in on turning Bond into an action-adventure figure gave the franchise new life by attracting some new fans, it wasn't a recipe for long term success. GE was No. 6 in domestic box office, but the next three films were 10, 14, and 12 (compared to 9, 9, and 4 for Craig's films).
By DAD, the Bond films seemed dated. The Craig films have an aura of cool.
Exactly. Like I said, Eon wanted to engage the younger audience. They wanted to make James Bond into a colorful video game full of explosions and gunshots. But technology at that time (PS1/N64) wasn't able to create experiences with such fidelity. I don't want to say Brosnan's films were without merit - rather they had lots of merit, but just no cohesion or sense of direction.
Craig really did screw things up for Brosnan's popularity though. When Brosnan was around, it was hard to imagine any actor being more handsome and suave then him. And then, Casino Royale came in with a hard left hook.
Craig really did screw things up for Brosnan's popularity though. When Brosnan was around, it was hard to imagine any actor being more handsome and suave then him. And then, Casino Royale came in with a hard left hook.
Craig certainly doesn't take anything away from Brosnan being handsome and suave. Craig isn't the least bit suave, and he's not popular with the women because he's handsome (and he certainly isn't). Brosnan still has that going for him (or at least Brosnan from the 80s and 90s does). But he's still got it. When Daniel Craig is Brosnan's age now he's going to look terrible. Going by his face he looks almost as old as Brosnan.
Exactly. Like I said, Eon wanted to engage the younger audience. They wanted to make James Bond into a colorful video game full of explosions and gunshots. ok.
Sorry. But where's the evidence for this? Where exactly did they say "were after more explosions and gunshots"
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Exactly. Like I said, Eon wanted to engage the younger audience. They wanted to make James Bond into a colorful video game full of explosions and gunshots. ok.
Sorry. But where's the evidence for this? Where exactly did they say "were after more explosions and gunshots"
It might not exactly be that they were after a younger audience, but they've always tried to keep up to date, though in the few movies before Licence to Kill they were behind in what was popular at the time. Licence to Kill was the the first big change in tone for a Bond film, with GoldenEye another big change and another with Casino Royale.
Exactly. Like I said, Eon wanted to engage the younger audience. They wanted to make James Bond into a colorful video game full of explosions and gunshots. ok.
Sorry. But where's the evidence for this? Where exactly did they say "were after more explosions and gunshots"
It might not exactly be that they were after a younger audience, but they've always tried to keep up to date, though in the few movies before Licence to Kill they were behind in what was popular at the time. Licence to Kill was the the first big change in tone for a Bond film, with GoldenEye another big change and another with Casino Royale.
I would say that the Change started with TLD.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Exactly. Like I said, Eon wanted to engage the younger audience. They wanted to make James Bond into a colorful video game full of explosions and gunshots. ok.
Sorry. But where's the evidence for this? Where exactly did they say "were after more explosions and gunshots"
Like, did you watch Brosnan's films? They were the among most violent and over-the-top in the series.
Craig really did screw things up for Brosnan's popularity though. When Brosnan was around, it was hard to imagine any actor being more handsome and suave then him. And then, Casino Royale came in with a hard left hook.
Craig certainly doesn't take anything away from Brosnan being handsome and suave. Craig isn't the least bit suave, and he's not popular with the women because he's handsome (and he certainly isn't). Brosnan still has that going for him (or at least Brosnan from the 80s and 90s does). But he's still got it. When Daniel Craig is Brosnan's age now he's going to look terrible. Going by his face he looks almost as old as Brosnan.
The funny thing is I hear far more men saying Craig isn't handsome than women.
Craig really did screw things up for Brosnan's popularity though. When Brosnan was around, it was hard to imagine any actor being more handsome and suave then him. And then, Casino Royale came in with a hard left hook.
Craig certainly doesn't take anything away from Brosnan being handsome and suave. Craig isn't the least bit suave, and he's not popular with the women because he's handsome (and he certainly isn't). Brosnan still has that going for him (or at least Brosnan from the 80s and 90s does). But he's still got it. When Daniel Craig is Brosnan's age now he's going to look terrible. Going by his face he looks almost as old as Brosnan.
The funny thing is I hear far more men saying Craig isn't handsome than women.
Craig is probably handsome in a Benedict Cumberbatch sense.
Exactly. Like I said, Eon wanted to engage the younger audience. They wanted to make James Bond into a colorful video game full of explosions and gunshots. ok.
Sorry. But where's the evidence for this? Where exactly did they say "were after more explosions and gunshots"
Like, did you watch Brosnan's films? They were the among most violent and over-the-top in the series.
I know the Brosnan films had them - but that was when they had a myriad if directors who thought they were making an action films ie TND
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
The Brosnan era seems to keep decreasing in popularity (although GE seems to retain its status as one of the best in the series). As much as I love the Craig era, I think this is a real shame.
It also seems to me that, in the eyes of the general public, Roger Moore's impact on the series seems to be fading. I know a number of casual Bond watchers who have seen all the Craig films, a handful of Connery's, OHMSS, and maybe one of the Daltons, but have never delved into the Moore era. Don't really know what to call it, but it just seems like Moore's films just aren't in the public consciousness as much as they used to be. Again, a real shame.
I can agree with that, most men I think feel Craig isn't " Handsome" in the
traditional Hollywood sense but Women do think he's sexy. I guess it comes
down to that old adage of " Animal Magnetism " , something you can't put
your finger on .......... .... Although many dream of putting their finger there. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The Brosnan era seems to keep decreasing in popularity (although GE seems to retain its status as one of the best in the series). As much as I love the Craig era, I think this is a real shame.
It also seems to me that, in the eyes of the general public, Roger Moore's impact on the series seems to be fading. I know a number of casual Bond watchers who have seen all the Craig films, a handful of Connery's, OHMSS, and maybe one of the Daltons, but have never delved into the Moore era. Don't really know what to call it, but it just seems like Moore's films just aren't in the public consciousness as much as they used to be. Again, a real shame.
A lot of casual Film Goers would really have little Interest in the Franchises History. Yes, they may see the odd Connery Outing, or one of the Brosnan's, but they would focus there Interest on the current Craig Era.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
The Brosnan era seems to keep decreasing in popularity (although GE seems to retain its status as one of the best in the series). As much as I love the Craig era, I think this is a real shame.
It also seems to me that, in the eyes of the general public, Roger Moore's impact on the series seems to be fading. I know a number of casual Bond watchers who have seen all the Craig films, a handful of Connery's, OHMSS, and maybe one of the Daltons, but have never delved into the Moore era. Don't really know what to call it, but it just seems like Moore's films just aren't in the public consciousness as much as they used to be. Again, a real shame.
A lot of casual Film Goers would really have little Interest in the Franchises History. Yes, they may see the odd Connery Outing, or one of the Brosnan's, but they would focus there Interest on the current Craig Era.
Yeah, you're probably right. But I also think there's a middle-tier Bond film watcher (not quite a "fan" but a little more interested in delving into Bond than the casual film goer, who usually fits these stereotypes. I'm simplifying it a bit, but these are just the trends I've noticed within such a group.
Comments
The last question ( usually a bit light hearted) what is your favourite Bond
Film. All four members of the panel picked ............................ AVTAK. -{
Sir Roger is a national institution, and much loved. {[]
Now, the Bond films are seen as trendy and original and popular and quality films with quality actors and directors.
100% agree.
Before Craig, it really seems like James Bond existed only to preserve a mold that was invented in the 60's. Not that the attitude of the later films was particularly wrong, but it seemed like it was a nostalgia trip to celebrate the experiences film-goers had in the 60's rather than create an entirely new blueprint like they did with Craig.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
This is not true for most people. As someone born a couple decades after the 60s, Bond was a pretty big part of my generation. For me it was a little nostalgia for the 1960s and 70s Bond films. For my friends who only liked Pierce Brosnan, it was a really cool film series that had some cool video games. GoldenEye had no nostalgia for the 1960s. It's was a completely modern action film that had little to do with the previous Bond films. People who were fans of the 60s Bond films didn't care for Brosnan's Bond. They were very successful films, so they couldn't have been drawing audiences purely on nostalgia.
100% agree.
Before CR tand LTK they had no direction. No impetus. They existed because they existed. And due to battles the Brosnan directors had - I could only think of them getting worse.
CR was a godsend. Babs pulled it back from the brink..
I've noticed as the stock of OHMSS and Lazenby has risen over the years and Barry's score also adding to it's patina, along with casting of Rigg, few mention the fact it's an Ian Fleming story. I've always underlined that point in my view on the series - the best are either close adaptations of his work or use a lot of scenes and themes from them.
+1. Up until the reboot, the films had to follow the EON Holy Commandments of how to make a Bond film that were carved into them when they made GF:
1. Thou shalt not have a film without Bond saying "Bond, James Bond" and ordering
his martini and preferably doing it in a tuxedo.
2. Thou shalt not have a film without a megalomaniac villain with a weird henchman
who plans on trying to blackmail the world or destroy it , or at least extort it.
3. Thou shalt not have a film without Bond defeating the villain in some lair in the
third act by blowing it up.
4. Thou shalt not have a film without Q handing out his latest gadgets.
5. Thou shalt not have a film without a tricked out car - even if it's not an Aston.
6. Though shalt not have a film without a heroine with a bizarre name.
7. Though shalt not have a film without an ally being sacrificed.
8. Though shalt not have a film without having Bond captured or being attacked
and escaping using the gadgets Q had just given to him.
9. Though shalt not have a film without Bond using bad puns.
10. Though shalt not have a film without Bond ending up in the arms of the heroine
at the closing credits.
There are more of course, but those were the basic ones. GF was a media firestorm and made a ton of cash for EON, so they realized as long as they stuck with the commandments, they would always have a good profit. This created a huge sense of nostalgia over the decades because everyone always looked forward to seeing those commandments (let's call it the GF blueprint) with each new entry.
Brosnan made a big splash with GE because it had been so many years since AVTAK and everyone knew Roger was a bit long in the tooth for that one and the blueprint was starting to get dried out and dog earred. Now there was a new, younger actor (who most always thought should be the next Bond) and a new Bond film. For extra nostalgia they even brought back the DB5. Well it all seemed glorious and fun, and the general audience did not even notice (or care) that EON still used its commandments - and continued to use them. Then came 911 and the increase in terrorism and of darker, more morally imbalanced action films and suddenly DAD seemed like someone reading a very old well known dirty limerick at a funeral. Everyone knew it - and it was out of place. Also, one of the major things that hampered the series over the decades was the series ran out of Fleming's work. It was relying on small scenes picked out here and there from the novels to help keep at least the spirit of his work alive, but it was as though Fleming had build a series of wonderful, mysterious fun houses and when the writers had to continue building new ones, their end result were the type of Hollywood back lot homes that only had decorative facades and nothing else.
EON then got the rights to CR - an original Fleming fun house (and the very first one).
Not only could they reintroduce Bond as a character, but also the one from the novels - not the one they recreated, and with audiences now used to the darker, realistic tone of action films, this novel could be adapted very closely and just brought up to date.
Now, EON was not about to destroy their stone commandments of the old series - they had proven to birth solid cash cows. They just needed to bring them back slowly and at a different angle. So, they still had the martini (which was in the novel anyway), tuxedo (also in the novel), a nasty villain (though not a megalomaniac and no monstrous henchman - just a realistic, greedy nasty sadist), a heroine with still an unusual name but not a weird one, TWO Aston Martins (one for nostalgia - one for the reboot), no Q, no Moneypenny, but keep the old M just for some continuity (no matter how odd it seems), have Bond actually get wounded and hurt (wow we can do that now?) and the heroine ends up in Bonds arms but as a dead blackmailed traitor (heroine combined with sacrificed ally). Last but not least, keep the large action scenes from the old series including an explosive third act (but not the villain's lair and not with the help of dozens of allied commandos).
Not only did the reboot breathe fresh air into the stale series, it gave it new youth (with the help of a real Fleming funhouse). Unfortunately, the next films would have the writers once again trying to build their own versions of his funhouses by using leftover materials. QOS was built too quickly, so though there was more than a facade but the inside was still not finished. SF seemed like a Fleming fun house - it was pretty much all there but made to look worn out and about to crumble - supported by old solid framing - Q and Moneypenny brought back - but the old M is replaced along with MI6 new digs (even though temporary) - so by the time we got out of it and into the daylight we could see they were ready to build the next one.
Now we've had three new fun houses and are ready to go into the fourth with Craig. It's going to be made up of old materials (SPECTRE, Blofeld[?], a henchman, the Aston, Q, Moneypenny, big action pieces and globe trotting), but at least Bond will be in his new flat and we'll get to see him back in the bitter snow and there will be new things to jump out at us.
The reference to the Brosnan era video games is telling. Video games are strong on explosions and machine guns and weak on narrative and characterization. Sort of like Brosnan's films.
While going all-in on turning Bond into an action-adventure figure gave the franchise new life by attracting some new fans, it wasn't a recipe for long term success. GE was No. 6 in domestic box office, but the next three films were 10, 14, and 12 (compared to 9, 9, and 4 for Craig's films).
By DAD, the Bond films seemed dated. The Craig films have an aura of cool.
Craig really did screw things up for Brosnan's popularity though. When Brosnan was around, it was hard to imagine any actor being more handsome and suave then him. And then, Casino Royale came in with a hard left hook.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Craig certainly doesn't take anything away from Brosnan being handsome and suave. Craig isn't the least bit suave, and he's not popular with the women because he's handsome (and he certainly isn't). Brosnan still has that going for him (or at least Brosnan from the 80s and 90s does). But he's still got it. When Daniel Craig is Brosnan's age now he's going to look terrible. Going by his face he looks almost as old as Brosnan.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Okay. I thought you were saying Craig surprised you by beating Brosnan at that.
Sorry. But where's the evidence for this? Where exactly did they say "were after more explosions and gunshots"
It might not exactly be that they were after a younger audience, but they've always tried to keep up to date, though in the few movies before Licence to Kill they were behind in what was popular at the time. Licence to Kill was the the first big change in tone for a Bond film, with GoldenEye another big change and another with Casino Royale.
I would say that the Change started with TLD.
Like, did you watch Brosnan's films? They were the among most violent and over-the-top in the series.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Craig is probably handsome in a Benedict Cumberbatch sense.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I know the Brosnan films had them - but that was when they had a myriad if directors who thought they were making an action films ie TND
Thats actually true
It also seems to me that, in the eyes of the general public, Roger Moore's impact on the series seems to be fading. I know a number of casual Bond watchers who have seen all the Craig films, a handful of Connery's, OHMSS, and maybe one of the Daltons, but have never delved into the Moore era. Don't really know what to call it, but it just seems like Moore's films just aren't in the public consciousness as much as they used to be. Again, a real shame.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2
traditional Hollywood sense but Women do think he's sexy. I guess it comes
down to that old adage of " Animal Magnetism " , something you can't put
your finger on .......... .... Although many dream of putting their finger there.
A lot of casual Film Goers would really have little Interest in the Franchises History. Yes, they may see the odd Connery Outing, or one of the Brosnan's, but they would focus there Interest on the current Craig Era.
Yeah, you're probably right. But I also think there's a middle-tier Bond film watcher (not quite a "fan" but a little more interested in delving into Bond than the casual film goer, who usually fits these stereotypes. I'm simplifying it a bit, but these are just the trends I've noticed within such a group.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/wish-i-was-at-disneyland/id1202780413?mt=2