Seeing it on a chart makes me realise just how much the films are starting to thin out in numbers over the years.
Many ups, downs, twists and turns in the series.
On the subject of 89-02 vs 06-19, comparing the two is, indeed, madness. I love the Craig era but I'll have to succumb to the fact that one era had better films than the other and at a much tighter schedule.
For once, on this thread, I agree with Jason.
I don't see how that is different from the Craig era. 8-) 8-)
My point is a quicker turnaround didn't mean better films.
I'd prefer adventures which might be disappointing released in two years time after the last one rather than ones that also may disappoint me with a bigger gap between films.
For example:
QoS--->SF (4 years)
LTK---->GE (6 years)
The trouble is, LTK and GE were both excellent films.
I can't say that for QoS and SF.
I don't see how that is different from the Craig era. 8-) 8-)
My point is a quicker turnaround didn't mean better films.
I'd prefer adventures which might be disappointing released in two years time after the last one rather than ones that also may disappoint me with a bigger gap between films.
For example:
QoS--->SF (4 years)
LTK---->GE (6 years)
The trouble is, LTK and GE were both excellent films.
I can't say that for QoS and SF.
That's just your opinion, man.
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
My point is a quicker turnaround didn't mean better films.
I'd prefer adventures which might be disappointing released in two years time after the last one rather than ones that also may disappoint me with a bigger gap between films.
For example:
QoS--->SF (4 years)
LTK---->GE (6 years)
The trouble is, LTK and GE were both excellent films.
I can't say that for QoS and SF.
I'd prefer adventures which might be disappointing released in two years time after the last one rather than ones that also may disappoint me with a bigger gap between films.
For example:
QoS--->SF (4 years)
LTK---->GE (6 years)
The trouble is, LTK and GE were both excellent films.
I can't say that for QoS and SF.
That's just your opinion, man.
So is yours, dude.
what no pithy comeback? Is there any? Any of the old Dirty Punker left?
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
I'd prefer the Bonds not to be so stunt driven. I'd like to see a return to more solid writing. Bond was always more interesting in the dinner confrontation in Dr. No or the laser scene in Goldfinger than doing something ridiculous physically, especially if the imagery was comically ineffective.
I think the golden mean is in play here, in as much as a balance of those elements is ideal. The derring-do is for me a necessary condition. Bond at its best uses counterpoint. Too much of either and Bond becomes a generic action man, or a dull playboy. Bond at its pinnacle finds a narrative and character amidst the action where we see Bond thinking and he has to dig deep to win through. I'm really hoping for some of this. Whether EON has lost its way for me will be decided by the next film.
But to me, the best Bonds lean toward playboy more than action hero. That's in part because it's a lot tougher to pull off a well-acted and written dialogue scene than it is crashing cars or boats or whatever. When done correctly, the scenes are far more interesting and memorable. Of the modern ones, Casino Royale did the best in terms of balance. The others lean toward relying more on action to tell the story, with comparatively minimal dialogue.
In my personal opinion, long gaps between films mean bugger all in terms of quality. CR is not my cup of tea, never has been. DAD also came after a 3 year gap, which will always be a low ranker for me.
However, GE is great (but LTK that came before it is EVEN better). SF is great.
SP was average. TSWLM is decent, but IMO no better than any other Moore film!
So yeah, those are all the films that came after 3 year + gaps, and my opinions on them are varied.
And then some of my absolute favourites, AVTAK, OP, LTK, LALD, FYEO, all came after 2 year gaps!
I know we're talking about general reception, but seeing as opinions were mentioned, I thought I'd throw mine in there.
I'd prefer the Bonds not to be so stunt driven. I'd like to see a return to more solid writing. Bond was always more interesting in the dinner confrontation in Dr. No or the laser scene in Goldfinger than doing something ridiculous physically, especially if the imagery was comically ineffective.
I think the golden mean is in play here, in as much as a balance of those elements is ideal. The derring-do is for me a necessary condition. Bond at its best uses counterpoint. Too much of either and Bond becomes a generic action man, or a dull playboy. Bond at its pinnacle finds a narrative and character amidst the action where we see Bond thinking and he has to dig deep to win through. I'm really hoping for some of this. Whether EON has lost its way for me will be decided by the next film.
But to me, the best Bonds lean toward playboy more than action hero. That's in part because it's a lot tougher to pull off a well-acted and written dialogue scene than it is crashing cars or boats or whatever. When done correctly, the scenes are far more interesting and memorable. Of the modern ones, Casino Royale did the best in terms of balance. The others lean toward relying more on action to tell the story, with comparatively minimal dialogue.
I agree with you. I'm hoping for the kind of balance of CR.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I don't see how that is different from the Craig era. 8-) 8-)
My point is a quicker turnaround didn't mean better films.
I don't know about the current spate, but the first four Bond films -- arguably among the best in the series -- were made about a year apart.
Totally agree with you - again. I made a similar comment in reference to yours in the thread 'The 80's Bond Films have All Aged Well'. Won't repeat myself here but if you want to look it up, your post is 46 and mine is post 50. -{
"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974; It's a scientific fact". - Homer J Simpson
My point is a quicker turnaround didn't mean better films.
I don't know about the current spate, but the first four Bond films -- arguably among the best in the series -- were made about a year apart.
Totally agree with you - again. I made a similar comment in reference to yours in the thread 'The 80's Bond Films have All Aged Well'. Won't repeat myself here but if you want to look it up, your post is 46 and mine is post 50. -{
Ultimately, there is no conclusive evidence that a longer/short gap produces better/worse Bond films. There are notable examples on all sides of the equation, which provide support depending on whatever way one chooses to view the matter. Pure confirmation bias. I personally think it's a superficial factor that garners way too much attention from fans.
Ultimately, there is no conclusive evidence that a longer/short gap produces better/worse Bond films. There are notable examples on all sides of the equation, which provide support depending on whatever way one chooses to view the matter. Pure confirmation bias. I personally think it's a superficial factor that garners way too much attention from fans.
I agree. What is more coherent for me at least is that
The first film of a new actor is superior to the preceeding one
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
For me, it doesn't matter what they've done in the past. There are all manner of reasons for the gaps in films. Legal issues, MGM fiscal meltdowns and just the reality of how much time it realistically takes to put together the type of high budget, tentpole films the Bond franchise produces. For some inexplicable reason there seem to be some who feel that EON is delaying films to punish them ) . I certainly understand being a big Bond fan that it might feel that way sometimes but I'm sure it's not. All I care about is that EON puts out the best Bond film they can for 25, whatever that takes. They have IMO an excellent Bond actor, a good supporting cast for the recurring roles, now they just need to mix in a good script under the stewardship of the right director. Bond films seem to be a magnet for great cinematographers so that should take care of itself.
All I care about is that EON puts out the best Bond film they can for 25, whatever that takes.
Nice post, Howard, and I almost totally agree with your sentiments.
For me, pushing 60, I can't help but recall that initially the Bonds were one a year.... then every two years... then every three years... now we're lucky if it's every four years. Selfishly, I'd like to see as many Bond films as possible before I go to play my golden harp!
Comments
Many ups, downs, twists and turns in the series.
On the subject of 89-02 vs 06-19, comparing the two is, indeed, madness. I love the Craig era but I'll have to succumb to the fact that one era had better films than the other and at a much tighter schedule.
For once, on this thread, I agree with Jason.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I'd prefer adventures which might be disappointing released in two years time after the last one rather than ones that also may disappoint me with a bigger gap between films.
For example:
QoS--->SF (4 years)
LTK---->GE (6 years)
The trouble is, LTK and GE were both excellent films.
I can't say that for QoS and SF.
I see what you did there
However, GE is great (but LTK that came before it is EVEN better). SF is great.
SP was average. TSWLM is decent, but IMO no better than any other Moore film!
So yeah, those are all the films that came after 3 year + gaps, and my opinions on them are varied.
And then some of my absolute favourites, AVTAK, OP, LTK, LALD, FYEO, all came after 2 year gaps!
I know we're talking about general reception, but seeing as opinions were mentioned, I thought I'd throw mine in there.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I agree with you. I'm hoping for the kind of balance of CR.
Oh yes please. I do hope so. No more 'Pop will eat itself' malarkey :007)
Totally agree with you - again. I made a similar comment in reference to yours in the thread 'The 80's Bond Films have All Aged Well'. Won't repeat myself here but if you want to look it up, your post is 46 and mine is post 50. -{
I agree. What is more coherent for me at least is that
The first film of a new actor is superior to the preceeding one
Nice post, Howard, and I almost totally agree with your sentiments.
For me, pushing 60, I can't help but recall that initially the Bonds were one a year.... then every two years... then every three years... now we're lucky if it's every four years. Selfishly, I'd like to see as many Bond films as possible before I go to play my golden harp!