I can't imagine FYEO starring Willis or Stallone because it's not an action movie. It's a spy movie with a little action. The first Bond film I could picture those guys in is LTK, which was a reaction to Die Hard and movies like that.
It's not The Spy Who Came in From the Cold or The Constant Gardner , either. It has long action sequences -- the ski chase, the submarine battle, the attack on Kristatos' warehouse, the assault on the monastery, etc. It seems more thoughtful because, compared to other Bond films, it is much more character-driven and plotted. While I wouldn't call it an action film per se, I do believe that if it were made with a different actor and without the Bond connection, it would have been thought of that way.
LTK was essentially a Miami Vice episode. Had it been made before that TV series, I might feel differently about it. But it's an uneven episode at that.
All of those action sequences are nothing like what you find in action films of Stallone or Willis. They're not nearly as intense as what you find in films those two men make. If the film had a different actor it could have been thought of differently, but not those two actors.
But FYEO was also made in 1981. And that's why I say FYEO without the Bond persona would have been seen as an entertaining but unremarkable action movie. What gives it life is that it's a Bond film that does the opposite of what we would expect. Take Bond out of the picture, and what's left, to many audiences, would not seem so remarkable.
In some ways, that's why LTK is disappointing to me. Not only does it just seem a rehash of any number of Miami Vice episodes, but Dalton's Bond is not compelling enough in that film to carry it as a Bond film.
It's not The Spy Who Came in From the Cold or The Constant Gardner , either. It has long action sequences -- the ski chase, the submarine battle, the attack on Kristatos' warehouse, the assault on the monastery, etc. It seems more thoughtful because, compared to other Bond films, it is much more character-driven and plotted. While I wouldn't call it an action film per se, I do believe that if it were made with a different actor and without the Bond connection, it would have been thought of that way.
LTK was essentially a Miami Vice episode. Had it been made before that TV series, I might feel differently about it. But it's an uneven episode at that.
All of those action sequences are nothing like what you find in action films of Stallone or Willis. They're not nearly as intense as what you find in films those two men make. If the film had a different actor it could have been thought of differently, but not those two actors.
But FYEO was also made in 1981. And that's why I say FYEO without the Bond persona would have been seen as an entertaining but unremarkable action movie. What gives it life is that it's a Bond film that does the opposite of what we would expect. Take Bond out of the picture, and what's left, to many audiences, would not seem so remarkable.
In some ways, that's why LTK is disappointing to me. Not only does it just seem a rehash of any number of Miami Vice episodes, but Dalton's Bond is not compelling enough in that film to carry it as a Bond film.
1981 is a year before Rambo and a number of years before Die Hard, so the Bond series didn't feel outdated yet like it did when A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights were released. I think considering it's time could have been seen as a good spy film. Though it did come a few weeks after the more action-packed Raiders of the Lost Ark.
All of those action sequences are nothing like what you find in action films of Stallone or Willis. They're not nearly as intense as what you find in films those two men make. If the film had a different actor it could have been thought of differently, but not those two actors.
But FYEO was also made in 1981. And that's why I say FYEO without the Bond persona would have been seen as an entertaining but unremarkable action movie. What gives it life is that it's a Bond film that does the opposite of what we would expect. Take Bond out of the picture, and what's left, to many audiences, would not seem so remarkable.
In some ways, that's why LTK is disappointing to me. Not only does it just seem a rehash of any number of Miami Vice episodes, but Dalton's Bond is not compelling enough in that film to carry it as a Bond film.
1981 is a year before Rambo and a number of years before Die Hard, so the Bond series didn't feel outdated yet like it did when A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights were released. I think considering it's time could have been seen as a good spy film. Though it did come a few weeks after the more action-packed Raiders of the Lost Ark.
It's not an issue of feeling dated so much as being a product of its time. The action sequences in FYEO were pretty standard for a Bond film -- in fact, several seem to more or less copy similar sequences in previous films, especially OHMSS 12 years earlier. But they certainly weren't revolutionary. The soon-to-be released 48 Hours and The Road Warrior, for instance, would eclipse FYEO in stunts and intensity and set new standards. What gives FYEO its power, though, is that it is a Bond film. Take him out of the picture, and what's left is nothing terribly remarkable. Despite its grounding in "reality," I still don't think it strongly qualifies as a spy film, at least not the way, in addition to the ones mentioned, The IPCRESS File, The Quiller Memorandum, or Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy do.
What would happen in a few years, especially with the action films by Willis and Stallone, was the action would be more intense and R-rated. But that path wasn't set as much by Bond, which was essentially doing the same things it had been for a decade, but by the recognition that audiences were craving something different. That's another reason why I say that take Bond out of FYEO, and it would not be seen as remarkable.
But if it wasn't for Bond, a lot of the Action Films like Rambo, Die Hard etc, would not exist.
Maybe. Die Hard was taken from a novel, the sequel to the 1960s book The Detective, which was made into a film with Frank Sinatra in 1968. Rambo was based on First Blood, the novel from 1972. Neither was trying to be a Bond story. They certainly could have been filmed regardless of whether Bond existed or not. The action got ramped up, but many films feature intense action sequences owing to what audiences at the time thought was intense.
And Bond-type films may not be as unique as people claim. Certainly, North by Northwest from 1959 is Bondian. So is 1962's The Guns of Navarone. The Prisoner of Zenda -- first made into a film in 1922 -- could be a Bond film with some minor changes. Hitchcock's Notorious, from 1946, is the closest movie I've seen to a Bond book.
I don't think FYEO adds anything significant to the genre. I love it as a Bond film because it works against expectations. As a movie with action in general? Not so much.
DAF - Absolutely not. The only saving grace for this movie's reputation is that it was an integral part of a big franchise's history.
LALD - No. If any company aside from Eon did it, it would be seen as a cheap clone.
MWGG - It's not a classic even with the Bond moniker.
TSWLM - Hard to say. It's really exceptionally well done but it's also not very original.
MR - Actually, if it weren't Bond, it would've been a classic. Just not a classic in the sense of being good.
FYEO - Debatable. Who knows. It's obscure though.
OP - Cult classic!
AVTAK - No.
TLD - It did more for the Bond series than it did for cinema.
LTK - It's one of my favorites, but sad to say, it probably would've dissolved in with the rest of the gritty action/drug lord stuff.
GE - It derives from Dr. No a lot, but if it weren't James Bond, a lot of people would'nt have loved it.
TND - Popcorn flick. Moving on.
TWINE - It has enough fresh ideas to be it's own intellectual property. Classic, probably not, though.
DAD - It would've been a Disney-ish kind of escapist movie that critics would have bombed but average movie goers would have liked a lot.
QOS - No. It would've been a popcorn flick for the summer and then forgotten. Even with the 007 pedigree, most have forgotten it.
SF - Would have been a big box office hit regardless. Classic, I dunno, but well acclaimed for sure.
I find such judgements funny as they are done by someone who is a "fan" since a couple of months and has just finished seeing all EON Bonds.
Though I applaud your enthusiasm - it's far to early in my opinion to do such remarks.
These may be YOUR OPINION YET (which will change over the years) but don't bear any general relevance when someone keeps your personal background in mind {:)
And this is not only in this particular thread - I see a pattern and it's pretty annoying.
It's like a 5-year old telling others how the world moves X-(
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But if it wasn't for Bond, a lot of the Action Films like Rambo, Die Hard etc, would not exist.
Maybe. Die Hard was taken from a novel, the sequel to the 1960s book The Detective, which was made into a film with Frank Sinatra in 1968. Rambo was based on First Blood, the novel from 1972. Neither was trying to be a Bond story. They certainly could have been filmed regardless of whether Bond existed or not. The action got ramped up, but many films feature intense action sequences owing to what audiences at the time thought was intense.
And Bond-type films may not be as unique as people claim. Certainly, North by Northwest from 1959 is Bondian. So is 1962's The Guns of Navarone. The Prisoner of Zenda -- first made into a film in 1922 -- could be a Bond film with some minor changes. Hitchcock's Notorious, from 1946, is the closest movie I've seen to a Bond book.
I don't think FYEO adds anything significant to the genre. I love it as a Bond film because it works against expectations. As a movie with action in general? Not so much.
Yes, your right.
I forgot about the Earlier Hitchcock Films that predate DN. And the Novel your referring to is Nothing Lasts Forever
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Anyway Goldeneye felt like it wanted to be Dr. No, that perfect introduction for Brosnan as it was for Connery. The shiny car, the casino scene, the girl, bond james bond. I know all films do this but Goldeneye did this in a really rigid way.
Anyway Goldeneye felt like it wanted to be Dr. No, that perfect introduction for Brosnan as it was for Connery. The shiny car, the casino scene, the girl, bond james bond. I know all films do this but Goldeneye did this in a really rigid way.
Dr. No didn't really have a shiny car. The Sunbeam was a rental and not particularly special in the way that a DB5 is. The casino scenes are very similar, but that's about it. The girls are extremely different.
In that sense every re introduction movie aspires to do what Dr. No did. Ohmss, Lald, Tld, Ge and in Craig's case, Sf. Introduce every trope one after the other in a linear back to back fashion.
Ill give Ohmss a pass because it did everything elso so beautifully but Dr. No wasn't trying to be Dr. No
Introduce Bond as he is meant to be introduced given the actor and the circumstances. But not as a reprise of Connery's introduction
TLD suffers this problem particularly because the silly one liners and the flirting isnt something Dalton would do
DAF - Absolutely not. The only saving grace for this movie's reputation is that it was an integral part of a big franchise's history.
LALD - No. If any company aside from Eon did it, it would be seen as a cheap clone.
MWGG - It's not a classic even with the Bond moniker.
TSWLM - Hard to say. It's really exceptionally well done but it's also not very original.
MR - Actually, if it weren't Bond, it would've been a classic. Just not a classic in the sense of being good.
FYEO - Debatable. Who knows. It's obscure though.
OP - Cult classic!
AVTAK - No.
TLD - It did more for the Bond series than it did for cinema.
LTK - It's one of my favorites, but sad to say, it probably would've dissolved in with the rest of the gritty action/drug lord stuff.
GE - It derives from Dr. No a lot, but if it weren't James Bond, a lot of people would'nt have loved it.
TND - Popcorn flick. Moving on.
TWINE - It has enough fresh ideas to be it's own intellectual property. Classic, probably not, though.
DAD - It would've been a Disney-ish kind of escapist movie that critics would have bombed but average movie goers would have liked a lot.
QOS - No. It would've been a popcorn flick for the summer and then forgotten. Even with the 007 pedigree, most have forgotten it.
SF - Would have been a big box office hit regardless. Classic, I dunno, but well acclaimed for sure.
I find such judgements funny as they are done by someone who is a "fan" since a couple of months and has just finished seeing all EON Bonds.
Though I applaud your enthusiasm - it's far to early in my opinion to do such remarks.
These may be YOUR OPINION YET (which will change over the years) but don't bear any general relevance when someone keeps your personal background in mind {:)
And this is not only in this particular thread - I see a pattern and it's pretty annoying.
It's like a 5-year old telling others how the world moves X-(
Can absolutely Cant please post what films he has seen and which ones he hasn't
So I know which ones I should pay attention too..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
In that sense every re introduction movie aspires to do what Dr. No did. Ohmss, Lald, Tld, Ge and in Craig's case, Sf. Introduce every trope one after the other in a linear back to back fashion.
So why make a point of claiming that GE derives a lot from DN?
In that sense every re introduction movie aspires to do what Dr. No did. Ohmss, Lald, Tld, Ge and in Craig's case, Sf. Introduce every trope one after the other in a linear back to back fashion.
Even Bond films that aren't an actor's first Bond film introduce the Bond tropes in the same way.
Yes, agreed. GE shares no more with DN than any other Bond movie does, and less than some- we have a thread on how much DN shares with LALD, for example: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43128/similarities-between-dr-no-and-lald/ - and as I said above, the car/girl/casino opening is more similar to OHMSS (particularly the novel).
Comments
In some ways, that's why LTK is disappointing to me. Not only does it just seem a rehash of any number of Miami Vice episodes, but Dalton's Bond is not compelling enough in that film to carry it as a Bond film.
1981 is a year before Rambo and a number of years before Die Hard, so the Bond series didn't feel outdated yet like it did when A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights were released. I think considering it's time could have been seen as a good spy film. Though it did come a few weeks after the more action-packed Raiders of the Lost Ark.
What would happen in a few years, especially with the action films by Willis and Stallone, was the action would be more intense and R-rated. But that path wasn't set as much by Bond, which was essentially doing the same things it had been for a decade, but by the recognition that audiences were craving something different. That's another reason why I say that take Bond out of FYEO, and it would not be seen as remarkable.
And Bond-type films may not be as unique as people claim. Certainly, North by Northwest from 1959 is Bondian. So is 1962's The Guns of Navarone. The Prisoner of Zenda -- first made into a film in 1922 -- could be a Bond film with some minor changes. Hitchcock's Notorious, from 1946, is the closest movie I've seen to a Bond book.
I don't think FYEO adds anything significant to the genre. I love it as a Bond film because it works against expectations. As a movie with action in general? Not so much.
LALD - No. If any company aside from Eon did it, it would be seen as a cheap clone.
MWGG - It's not a classic even with the Bond moniker.
TSWLM - Hard to say. It's really exceptionally well done but it's also not very original.
MR - Actually, if it weren't Bond, it would've been a classic. Just not a classic in the sense of being good.
FYEO - Debatable. Who knows. It's obscure though.
OP - Cult classic!
AVTAK - No.
TLD - It did more for the Bond series than it did for cinema.
LTK - It's one of my favorites, but sad to say, it probably would've dissolved in with the rest of the gritty action/drug lord stuff.
GE - It derives from Dr. No a lot, but if it weren't James Bond, a lot of people would'nt have loved it.
TND - Popcorn flick. Moving on.
TWINE - It has enough fresh ideas to be it's own intellectual property. Classic, probably not, though.
DAD - It would've been a Disney-ish kind of escapist movie that critics would have bombed but average movie goers would have liked a lot.
QOS - No. It would've been a popcorn flick for the summer and then forgotten. Even with the 007 pedigree, most have forgotten it.
SF - Would have been a big box office hit regardless. Classic, I dunno, but well acclaimed for sure.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Can anyone name an intellectual property with more than 5 classic movies in it? Probably not.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
That's interesting- why would you say GE "derives from Dr. No a lot" more than other Bond movies do?
I find such judgements funny as they are done by someone who is a "fan" since a couple of months and has just finished seeing all EON Bonds.
Though I applaud your enthusiasm - it's far to early in my opinion to do such remarks.
These may be YOUR OPINION YET (which will change over the years) but don't bear any general relevance when someone keeps your personal background in mind {:)
And this is not only in this particular thread - I see a pattern and it's pretty annoying.
It's like a 5-year old telling others how the world moves X-(
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yes, your right.
I forgot about the Earlier Hitchcock Films that predate DN. And the Novel your referring to is Nothing Lasts Forever
This puzzles me too. I really don't see the similarities.
Anyway Goldeneye felt like it wanted to be Dr. No, that perfect introduction for Brosnan as it was for Connery. The shiny car, the casino scene, the girl, bond james bond. I know all films do this but Goldeneye did this in a really rigid way.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Dr. No didn't really have a shiny car. The Sunbeam was a rental and not particularly special in the way that a DB5 is. The casino scenes are very similar, but that's about it. The girls are extremely different.
Specifically, those elements as seen in GE are very much closer to OHMSS than DN.
Ill give Ohmss a pass because it did everything elso so beautifully but Dr. No wasn't trying to be Dr. No
Introduce Bond as he is meant to be introduced given the actor and the circumstances. But not as a reprise of Connery's introduction
TLD suffers this problem particularly because the silly one liners and the flirting isnt something Dalton would do
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Can absolutely Cant please post what films he has seen and which ones he hasn't
So I know which ones I should pay attention too..
Wow... can you be more snide?
With all the hate I'm getting I must be a prophet sent by Cubby himself.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
You are not getting any hate here, just a lot of 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
So that means your favorite Bond is Sean Connery in DAF, am I correct?
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
So why make a point of claiming that GE derives a lot from DN?
Even Bond films that aren't an actor's first Bond film introduce the Bond tropes in the same way.