Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,817MI6 Agent
I feel Sir Sean didn't set the benchmark, he set A benchmark. In their own ways, Mr Dalton and Mr Craig have set very Flemingesque tones, but ALL of them have been brilliant! (Except Peter Sellars. - Sorry)
Sir Roger once said in a Moonraker related interview that playing Bond is like playing a role in Shakespeare. You have to interpret the character in your own style, whats right for you. As professional, talented and well directed actors, all the 007 leads have done this. - I include David Niven here. A damned good actor, he did his best with an absolute horse of a script!
Having said that, I do feel sorry for the other Bond leads, getting compared to Sir Sean and I'm tired of it. Sir Sean's opinion on the whole thing is quite clear too!
For that much, it can't have been fun for the actors who followed Desmond Llewellyn, Lois Maxwell and Bernard Lee as Q, MPenny and M either.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Sir Roger once said in a Moonraker related interview that playing Bond is like playing a role in Shakespeare. You have to interpret the character in your own style, whats right for you.
I disagree with that. I believe that Fleming wrote the character the way he did for a reason. Actors playing Bond should as closely as possible portray the literary Bond as written by Fleming. Some actors have done this better than others.
Sir Roger once said in a Moonraker related interview that playing Bond is like playing a role in Shakespeare. You have to interpret the character in your own style, whats right for you.
I disagree with that. I believe that Fleming wrote the character the way he did for a reason. Actors playing Bond should as closely as possible portray the literary Bond as written by Fleming. Some actors have done this better than others.
Well, Roger Moore played Bond the longest, in the most films and was one of the most popular actors to play the part, so I think he knew what he was saying...
Sir Roger once said in a Moonraker related interview that playing Bond is like playing a role in Shakespeare. You have to interpret the character in your own style, whats right for you.
I disagree with that. I believe that Fleming wrote the character the way he did for a reason. Actors playing Bond should as closely as possible portray the literary Bond as written by Fleming. Some actors have done this better than others.
Wouldn't it be simpler to get an actor that suits the part rather than forcing the part to suit the actor ? I also struggle with the each to his own, everything's permissible, let it all hang out vibe. however I do think that within the character as written there is space for difference.it has a level of plasticity that means for example Connerry and Dalton were very different, but I had no trouble recognising the character as the same one as in FRWL say. For me, much as I love Big Tam, he amped up the swagger which was probably in large part a cause of the global phenomenon. I never believed that Roger was Bond, and I don't think he did either.The interpretation had stretched the mould too far for my tastes. The acid test for me is ' do I clearly recognise and believe that this is James Bond'
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
+1
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
Sadly too true. It all comes down to the hard cash and what sells well - Bondian fantasy. The 1970s were hard to live through, I'd imagine and people didn't want to see grim reality on the screen of the A Clockwork Orange variety. There was enough of that in the real world. They wanted the escapist, camp and fun Bond films that featured Roger Moore instead.
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because no one wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
Sadly too true. It all comes down to the hard cash and what sells well - Bondian fantasy. The 1970s were hard to live through, I'd imagine and people didn't want to see grim reality on the screen of the A Clockwork Orange variety. There was enough of that in the real world. They wanted the escapist, camp and fun Bond films that featured Roger Moore instead.
Ding ding ding!! - Give that man the Faberje egg! A very Fleming element to point out.
By that I mean Mr Flemings books gave the reader excitement, exotic locales, unusual and luxurious foods, sexy women, and adventure et all. Granted films like TSWLM, MKR and DAD are far cry from the style and approach of the books, but they retain that excitement and the good things in life factor with the adventure.
The other thing is in the films Bond has moved with times. Dropping the smoking, war of the sexes replacing sexism, political changes, the march of technology. I don't know about the books, but any actor trying to play Bond exactly the same manner as Sir Sean, Mr Flemmings writing, or Sir Roger would get short shrift, because we would get bored. The character has to evolve too. Unless it was a post war, period piece film, EXACTLY like the books.
Also film and tv are not linier. I saw Sir Roger as Bond first, then Sir Sean. Maybe that's why I see all of them as great with their varying interpretations.
I say all that, but have to admit, Desmond Llewellyn will always be the original and best Q. Mr Wishaw is damned good as the new "IT" Q!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
I am aware of that 'the 70's were different' point of view, I just don't share the inevitability of the arguement. There were several particularly ' gritty' films during that period. Even accepting that a lighter tone was a prerequisite I don't believe they needed to descend to that level of camp tomfoolery. But hey maybe it's just me. I didn't get those movies, and in the main I avoided them, and still do. if others find them enjoyable then good for them. It's just for me I struggle to recognise anyhting very much of Bond in them. I could have lived with it better if Roger was more convincing in terms of physicality. I do however think that he is a charming man, and probably a much better actor than he was given the opportunity to be.
What people still don't get is that cinema in the 70s had to be big, funny and entertaining.
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
I am aware of that 'the 70's were different' point of view, I just don't share the inevitability of the arguement. There were several particularly ' gritty' films during that period. Even accepting that a lighter tone was a prerequisite I don't believe they needed to descend to that level of camp tomfoolery. But hey maybe it's just me. I didn't get those movies, and in the main I avoided them, and still do. if others find them enjoyable then good for them. It's just for me I struggle to recognise anyhting very much of Bond in them. I could have lived with it better if Roger was more convincing in terms of physicality. I do however think that he is a charming man, and probably a much better actor than he was given the opportunity to be.
It's definitely not just you, Zap. The campy Bond of the Roger Moore films is the difficult for me to accept as 007. The generally jokey tone and Moore's unconvincing physical portrayal of the character land these films at the bottom of my rankings. I don't really avoid these movies, but I don't enjoy as much as I do the others.
I don't avoid any Bond film, except for the 67 CR ( awful ) and I tend
to only watch the good bits of NSNA ( which are few ). As for the rest there's
at least One to suit whatever mood you're in.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
This is exactly why when anyone asks me who my favourite Bond is I always reply that I don't have a particular favourite actor who played Bond it's the character in general I like.
I don't think it's fair to compare Sean with other actors who played Bond. The way i see it is that Sean was a template for all the other actors to follow. All the actors can do is put their own personal spin on the role. It would be boring if all the actors played Bond as a lady killing charmer who owns every fight he's been in. It's nice that they all have their own interpretations on Bond's personality.
Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?"
Every actor portraying Bond is completely different and that's why I love the series! Always a different flavor for any mood
Some people say Lazenby was wooden, but I think it worked well for that particular incarnation of Bond. His lack of acting experience gave him a nice 'detached' quality. And he was able to bring it home in the finale.
Lazenby gave Bond a sort of vulnerability, shown in the scene where Bond escapes from Piz Gloria and he is seen cowering in the street. he's like a scared little boy in that scene. Also thank god he went against Peter Hunt's advice on the ending scene telling him that Bond shouldn't cry. It really heightens the impact of the scene to hear him sobbing the way he did.
Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?"
Comments
"Craig, the best Bond since Brosnan!"
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Sir Roger once said in a Moonraker related interview that playing Bond is like playing a role in Shakespeare. You have to interpret the character in your own style, whats right for you. As professional, talented and well directed actors, all the 007 leads have done this. - I include David Niven here. A damned good actor, he did his best with an absolute horse of a script!
Having said that, I do feel sorry for the other Bond leads, getting compared to Sir Sean and I'm tired of it. Sir Sean's opinion on the whole thing is quite clear too!
For that much, it can't have been fun for the actors who followed Desmond Llewellyn, Lois Maxwell and Bernard Lee as Q, MPenny and M either.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
True, but only when we go off topic!
I disagree with that. I believe that Fleming wrote the character the way he did for a reason. Actors playing Bond should as closely as possible portray the literary Bond as written by Fleming. Some actors have done this better than others.
Well, Roger Moore played Bond the longest, in the most films and was one of the most popular actors to play the part, so I think he knew what he was saying...
Wouldn't it be simpler to get an actor that suits the part rather than forcing the part to suit the actor ? I also struggle with the each to his own, everything's permissible, let it all hang out vibe. however I do think that within the character as written there is space for difference.it has a level of plasticity that means for example Connerry and Dalton were very different, but I had no trouble recognising the character as the same one as in FRWL say. For me, much as I love Big Tam, he amped up the swagger which was probably in large part a cause of the global phenomenon. I never believed that Roger was Bond, and I don't think he did either.The interpretation had stretched the mould too far for my tastes. The acid test for me is ' do I clearly recognise and believe that this is James Bond'
There was no cable tv, no VCR no internet and people wanted to see something bigger and greater than on normal tv.
Bringing Bond to a realistic adaption to the Fleming novels back then would have ended in a desaster for the franchise - simply because noone wanted to see that!
All that we can enjoy today has its base in the huge and entertaining movies which started with TB and these have nothing remotely to do with the novels - except OHMSS.
The very modest acceptance of the Dalton Bonds more than a decade later may give you a hint about what would happened in the 70s.
Roger Moore's success in his movies did not came from nothing until AVTAK where he was visibly too old to play a convincing Bond
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
+1
Bondtoys has nailed it.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Sadly too true. It all comes down to the hard cash and what sells well - Bondian fantasy. The 1970s were hard to live through, I'd imagine and people didn't want to see grim reality on the screen of the A Clockwork Orange variety. There was enough of that in the real world. They wanted the escapist, camp and fun Bond films that featured Roger Moore instead.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Ding ding ding!! - Give that man the Faberje egg! A very Fleming element to point out.
By that I mean Mr Flemings books gave the reader excitement, exotic locales, unusual and luxurious foods, sexy women, and adventure et all. Granted films like TSWLM, MKR and DAD are far cry from the style and approach of the books, but they retain that excitement and the good things in life factor with the adventure.
The other thing is in the films Bond has moved with times. Dropping the smoking, war of the sexes replacing sexism, political changes, the march of technology. I don't know about the books, but any actor trying to play Bond exactly the same manner as Sir Sean, Mr Flemmings writing, or Sir Roger would get short shrift, because we would get bored. The character has to evolve too. Unless it was a post war, period piece film, EXACTLY like the books.
Also film and tv are not linier. I saw Sir Roger as Bond first, then Sir Sean. Maybe that's why I see all of them as great with their varying interpretations.
I say all that, but have to admit, Desmond Llewellyn will always be the original and best Q. Mr Wishaw is damned good as the new "IT" Q!
I am aware of that 'the 70's were different' point of view, I just don't share the inevitability of the arguement. There were several particularly ' gritty' films during that period. Even accepting that a lighter tone was a prerequisite I don't believe they needed to descend to that level of camp tomfoolery. But hey maybe it's just me. I didn't get those movies, and in the main I avoided them, and still do. if others find them enjoyable then good for them. It's just for me I struggle to recognise anyhting very much of Bond in them. I could have lived with it better if Roger was more convincing in terms of physicality. I do however think that he is a charming man, and probably a much better actor than he was given the opportunity to be.
It's definitely not just you, Zap. The campy Bond of the Roger Moore films is the difficult for me to accept as 007. The generally jokey tone and Moore's unconvincing physical portrayal of the character land these films at the bottom of my rankings. I don't really avoid these movies, but I don't enjoy as much as I do the others.
to only watch the good bits of NSNA ( which are few
at least One to suit whatever mood you're in.
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
" I don't listen to hip hop!"