Paraphrasing John Glen, he was aiming at the tone of FRWL but felt he'd ended up closer to OHMSS- which is not a bad result.
I agree. I find that Glen's first four films all have much of the 1960s Bond in them, and I'm including the very wide scope of the 1960s Bond films. But the firetruck chase in AVTAK and just about all of LTK are very 1980s, IMHO.
Agree with others on DAD>CR, OHMSS>DAF and Gassy Man's FRWL>GF vote.
TMWTGG and TSWLM are certainly different films but despite the silly tone of TWTGG it's not as odd as the previous two, if TMWTGG didn't exist then I'd go for LALD>TSWLM.
There's a little too much consistency between the Moore Bonds for me to consider MR>FYEO. Yep they're pretty different, but FYEO isn't without its established quirks.
Thanks, IcePak, all good points. Any thoughts re TMWTGG to TSWLM?
Sure, there is a tone shift between the two films, but it's not as great as between some of the other films. I'd say the shift is that TSWLM takes itself more seriously, while TMWTGG follows DAF and LALD in that it pokes fun at the Bond formula.
Overall, From Russia with Love to Goldfinger. The first two Bond films were fairly serious and somewhat old-fashioned in their approach. Dr. No could have been made in the 1950s, and From Russia with Love was a cousin of North by Northwest, with some David Lean sensibilities. But Goldfinger took the films in a completely different direction. It's routinely played for laughs and meant to be over-the-top, presupposing the camp fad that would take over television and film a year or two later -- it's not campy, but it signals a major shift in both tone and execution for Bond movies.
I completely agree with FRWL and GF being quite different from each other. FRWL is a serious spy film, while GF takes the spy film genre and makes it larger than life and amps up the humour and fun Bond has while on mission without making it as camp as some of the future entries in the series.
There's also a big tone shift between MR and FYEO. The former follows in the YOLT and TSWLM formula of a larger than life situation and hero who walks through it all effortlessly with a grin on his face. The latter is more down to earth and reminiscent of a Fleming novel where Bond actually has to make an effort to succeed. It shares similarities in tone with OHMSS and FRWL.
In the other thread, Higgins felt that TMWTGG to TSWLM was the point at which Bond changes from spy to superhero. While agreeing that there was a major shift in tone between those two movies, I believe that particular change happened long before this point* and the contrasts between DAD and CR are greater.
I think the change from bowler-hatted midgets to steel-toothed giants is less significant than that between invisible cars and having one's balls attacked with a knotted rope, and that Spy is a deliberately formulaic 007 film (with boxes almost visibly being ticked at regular intervals) while Man is a lazily formulaic one. CR was deliberately anti-formula (you don't need me to list the points**) and succeeded, while DAD made an attempt to be different (1st bit) while still keeping the formula (2nd bit) and most reckon it failed.
* but that's a different argument.
** do you?
+1
Although I think TP has a point.
But the first 30-45 minutes of DAF are similar in tone to OHMSS. It's after that that the movie goes off the rails.
In the other thread, Higgins felt that TMWTGG to TSWLM was the point at which Bond changes from spy to superhero. While agreeing that there was a major shift in tone between those two movies, I believe that particular change happened long before this point* and the contrasts between DAD and CR are greater.
I think the change from bowler-hatted midgets to steel-toothed giants is less significant than that between invisible cars and having one's balls attacked with a knotted rope, and that Spy is a deliberately formulaic 007 film (with boxes almost visibly being ticked at regular intervals) while Man is a lazily formulaic one. CR was deliberately anti-formula (you don't need me to list the points**) and succeeded, while DAD made an attempt to be different (1st bit) while still keeping the formula (2nd bit) and most reckon it failed.
* but that's a different argument.
** do you?
+1
Although I think TP has a point.
But the first 30-45 minutes of DAF are similar in tone to OHMSS. It's after that that the movie goes off the rails.
Tp does have a point, and he's not afraid to use it
The biggest changes in tone always seem to come when there is a change in the actor playing Bond.
I'm not sure how it works. Does MGM/EON fit the film to the new actor or do they cast the actor to fit a new direction for the franchise?
This is the case for some, but sir Roger could easily have done DAF, maybe the elevator fight would not be as good but still, also Tim Dalton would have been fine in ge.
The biggest changes in tone always seem to come when there is a change in the actor playing Bond.
I'm not sure how it works. Does MGM/EON fit the film to the new actor or do they cast the actor to fit a new direction for the franchise?
This is the case for some, but sir Roger could easily have done DAF, maybe the elevator fight would not be as good but still, also Tim Dalton would have been fine in ge.
I'm sure that Roger could have done the lift fight in DAF just as well as Connery. The way it was shot is the reason why it's so great.
There's also not a huge difference between AVTAK and TLD. Like the actor switch from DAF to LALD, keeping the same director and writers meant that there wasn't a huge change in the direction of those films. I feel like TLD has more in common with AVTAK and FYEO than it does with LTK.
The biggest changes in tone always seem to come when there is a change in the actor playing Bond.
I'm not sure how it works. Does MGM/EON fit the film to the new actor or do they cast the actor to fit a new direction for the franchise?
This is the case for some, but sir Roger could easily have done DAF, maybe the elevator fight would not be as good but still, also Tim Dalton would have been fine in ge.
I'm sure that Roger could have done the lift fight in DAF just as well as Connery. The way it was shot is the reason why it's so great.
There's also not a huge difference between AVTAK and TLD. Like the actor switch from DAF to LALD, keeping the same director and writers meant that there wasn't a huge change in the direction of those films. I feel like TLD has more in common with AVTAK and FYEO than it does with LTK.
I don't think sir Roger couldn't have done a decent lift fight, but Sean had a certain relish for fist fights that always seems to come through. It's purely a personal thing and not a reflection on sir Roger at all.
The biggest changes in tone always seem to come when there is a change in the actor playing Bond.
I'm not sure how it works. Does MGM/EON fit the film to the new actor or do they cast the actor to fit a new direction for the franchise?
This is the case for some, but sir Roger could easily have done DAF, maybe the elevator fight would not be as good but still, also Tim Dalton would have been fine in ge.
A DAF with Sir Roger as Bond and Charles Gray as Blofeld would've veered too far in the Casino Royale '67 direction.
Chriscoop, if he drove a Porsche it would of certainly been more believable to race with the F355 and if he wore a Sub, he would've gotten out of those restraints in the helicopter minutes before Brosnan would. With the magnet he could've also gotten the PPK and been out of the Archives way faster.
Yep! That's the one for me too. A new-look Bond as an agent just coming into his 00 status, a consistently serious tone, no Q or Moneypenny, few gadgets and the most melancholy ending since OHMSS. All of these elements contribute to CR being a huge shift from the Bond film that immediately preceded it.
It is, for sure - but for me it's hard to beat the transition from outer space (MR) to a cold-war thriller (FYEO) about a missing piece of spy technology.
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
Comments
Paraphrasing John Glen, he was aiming at the tone of FRWL but felt he'd ended up closer to OHMSS- which is not a bad result.
I agree. I find that Glen's first four films all have much of the 1960s Bond in them, and I'm including the very wide scope of the 1960s Bond films. But the firetruck chase in AVTAK and just about all of LTK are very 1980s, IMHO.
TMWTGG and TSWLM are certainly different films but despite the silly tone of TWTGG it's not as odd as the previous two, if TMWTGG didn't exist then I'd go for LALD>TSWLM.
There's a little too much consistency between the Moore Bonds for me to consider MR>FYEO. Yep they're pretty different, but FYEO isn't without its established quirks.
"Better make that two."
Sure, there is a tone shift between the two films, but it's not as great as between some of the other films. I'd say the shift is that TSWLM takes itself more seriously, while TMWTGG follows DAF and LALD in that it pokes fun at the Bond formula.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
I completely agree with FRWL and GF being quite different from each other. FRWL is a serious spy film, while GF takes the spy film genre and makes it larger than life and amps up the humour and fun Bond has while on mission without making it as camp as some of the future entries in the series.
There's also a big tone shift between MR and FYEO. The former follows in the YOLT and TSWLM formula of a larger than life situation and hero who walks through it all effortlessly with a grin on his face. The latter is more down to earth and reminiscent of a Fleming novel where Bond actually has to make an effort to succeed. It shares similarities in tone with OHMSS and FRWL.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
+1
Although I think TP has a point.
But the first 30-45 minutes of DAF are similar in tone to OHMSS. It's after that that the movie goes off the rails.
I'm not sure how it works. Does MGM/EON fit the film to the new actor or do they cast the actor to fit a new direction for the franchise?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm sure that Roger could have done the lift fight in DAF just as well as Connery. The way it was shot is the reason why it's so great.
There's also not a huge difference between AVTAK and TLD. Like the actor switch from DAF to LALD, keeping the same director and writers meant that there wasn't a huge change in the direction of those films. I feel like TLD has more in common with AVTAK and FYEO than it does with LTK.
A DAF with Sir Roger as Bond and Charles Gray as Blofeld would've veered too far in the Casino Royale '67 direction.
Let me think....
No!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Actually, TB to CR is a pretty big shift!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
..and we have a winner! {[] (On a technicality)
It is, for sure - but for me it's hard to beat the transition from outer space (MR) to a cold-war thriller (FYEO) about a missing piece of spy technology.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM