The James Bond Debate Thread - 217
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 2,225
    Agreed, Samuel -- but I think anyone besides Connery would have had an equally cold reception
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 9,932
    Yes, it was always going to be that way, no matter who was Bond. It was not Connery and that was the problem.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 3,508
    DarthDimi said:

    THESIS 116

    Of all the Bond films, OHMSS built most fan enthusiasm after its release.



    Agree. At the time i am guessing it was a case of he is not Connery! Which to be fair? Is understandable. I would imagine that there may well have been some anti-Lazenby stuff going on too?

    But without doubt alot more people nowadays have realised just how good a movie OHMSS really was.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,804
    Agree
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,632
    As long as FRWL wasn't as enthusiastic on release as after, I can agree with this. But I think CR could be a great contender more so than OHMSS. All the hate Dan got turned into large numbers of praise.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan
    Posts: 1,744
    DarthDimi said:

    THESIS 116

    Of all the Bond films, OHMSS built most fan enthusiasm after its release.



    I agree although it actually had stronger box office results and got better reviews on its initial release that many believe as this link illustrates-

    http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/history_press_ohmss_critics.php3?t=mi6&s=ohmss
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 2,141
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    As long as FRWL wasn't as enthusiastic on release as after, I can agree with this. But I think CR could be a great contender more so than OHMSS. All the hate Dan got turned into large numbers of praise.



    I agree with this thesis.

    I disagree with CR being a contender. The negativity on DC was before the release of the movie. When it was released there was an immidiate sigh of relief and positivity about CR & DC.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,632
    By saying "after it being released", I meant by it actually being released in theaters. So, weeks into its showing, AFTER its release there was huge enthusiasm. If we are saying that by after its release we mean way into the future, then I still see CR as a contender, but OHMSS has picked up much more fanfare than it had, so who knows.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 2,141
    I find it hard to see CR as a movie that suffered from anything. If anything it benefitted greatly from all negativity, it made folks more interested in the movie. And once it played it did very well.

    OHMSS suffered also because of the new Bond, read NOT- Connery. It did kinda okay at the BO but suffered a lot of critism. With the VHS and dvd the movie got re-evaluated because now it was easier obtainable. Since then people started noticing how strong this first and only movie from George Lazenby actually was and how powerfull the drama was. OHMSS has gained a lot of friends years after its release.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje
    Posts: 884
    Albert R Broccoli don't like him and when the Boxoffice faild he yuse this as excuse, that's the idea i got from the inside OHMSS documentry. That's what there let us believe. I think the end of the story is a reasen why it flops, for 1969 not accepted that the movie end sad and Tracy is played by Dana Rigg. I always believed mabey this be another reasen Connery don't whant do OHMSS.

    My own experience with the first view of OHMSS (VHS) whasn't positieve too, like FRWL Octopussy TMND or Twine for example the movie must grow on me.

    With CR fans and media be to positivity, in specialy because of all the previous hate of Brosnan and the problems people don't like to have with the 24 subject of the movie.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi
    Posts: 5,872
    THESIS 117

    The first few Bond films were trend setters; the most recent Bond films mostly followed trends.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 7,797
    Agree.

    BUT I wouldn't say it's just the most recent films, Bond has been following trends since the 70s. It hurts the films when it's really obvious they're following trends (space in MR, Bourne style editing/cam in QOS).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007
    Posts: 4,831
    Agree.

    but you could argue that the early Bond films were following the Hitchcock style, like 'North By Northwest'.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 2,141
    DaltonCraig007 said:

    Agree.

    but you could argue that the early Bond films were following the Hitchcock style, like 'North By Northwest'.



    The helicopter scene was an hommage to NBNw, the rest of the movie was fairly faithfull to the Fleming novel. So it went their own way not following anything from sanother movie. With GF, TB, YOLT even OHMSS they did set the trend.
    Then again with TSWLM & MR they also set the trend in actionmovies as going where no actioner had gone before. (The popularity of SW did make it economical feasible to be a little more SciFi).

    So agreed.

  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 2,252
    Thesis 116- I would agree. There is no question that the public was not ready to accept a Bond actor not named Sean Connery, and it didn't help that George was a lousy actor. My perception of the film has greatly improved over the years and I've come to realize that it is a classic, but George had very little to do with any of it.

    Thesis 117- Agreed, but as stated, you could trace trend copying long before the Craig era. I'd trace it back to 1973 when LALD conveniently turned up smack in the middle of the "Blaxploitation era". TSWLM was a rehash of YOLT and was looking to capitalize on "Jaws", MR was a cash in on "Star Wars" and even worse, spoofs of Bond made outside of the series, etc, etc. It's like I've said, after 50 years it's got to be difficult not to go somewhere when someone doesn't think they've copied someone else.

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 3,508
    Agree. When Bond first appeared in cinema it was a revolution in movie genre's. Now there is far more competition in the action movie business.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,804
    Agree you had all three style Bond films in that first decade.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje
    Posts: 884
    Agree. Whyle it be a dificult quistion. For me LTK stil set a trend. So with recent iam thinking more about DAD, CR, QOS (and Skyfall).

  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,332
    M_Balje said:

    Agree. Whyle it be a dificult quistion. For me LTK stil set a trend. So with recent iam thinking more about DAD, CR, QOS (and Skyfall).



    I disagree that LTK was setting any trends, it was following in them. It co-opted the gritty action of Miami Vice and Die-Hard that were already established.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 2,252
    JBFan626 said:

    M_Balje said:

    Agree. Whyle it be a dificult quistion. For me LTK stil set a trend. So with recent iam thinking more about DAD, CR, QOS (and Skyfall).



    I disagree that LTK was setting any trends, it was following in them. It co-opted the gritty action of Miami Vice and Die-Hard that were already established.


    Ah, but LTK did set a trend as far as Bond movies go, hence why so many hardcores have definitely noticed a similarity as to how Craig portrayed the character for sure in QOS. That part of the Bond personality has only been touched on before Dalton let it out full blast.

    I never found Miami Vice to be gritty in the sense of Die Hard, the only thing LTK has in common with Vice is the locales, which are easily trumped by the amazing scenery filmed in Mexico and the Bahamas.


  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss
    Posts: 810
    But that's the wrong comparison, as the first movies would always be 'trendsetters' for Bond, as ther were none before. But I guess Bondfilms couldn't set any more trends easily, once you've got your fomula set, you can't reall y keep on changing it. I nean, would anyone accept ninjas in a starwars film?
    So, I agree with the thesis, but with one annotation: Bond films have been reinventing themselves, even though there is a set of givens that you can't ignore. I think therein lies the strength of th Bondfilms.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    Agree for the first part and Disagree for the second. For the 100th time the Craig films are not ripping off the Bourne movies.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,046
    Disagree because of GoldenEye and Casino Royale. As has become a Martin Campbell trademark, he opened the door for 007 once again, and both times did so in a manner that sprayed fresh scent on the series when the public had gotten a stale scent beforehand (even though I like LTK and DAD).
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 2,141
    SirHenryLeeChaChing said:


    I never found Miami Vice to be gritty in the sense of Die Hard, the only thing LTK has in common with Vice is the locales, which are easily trumped by the amazing scenery filmed in Mexico and the Bahamas.



    I bought the series Miami Vice on dvd recently, my memories are wrong. It looks all very colourfull but that show is very gritty and dark.
    And shows amazing scenery filmed in 5 seasons.

    I fear that visualy LTK is a poor mans Miami Vice.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi
    Posts: 5,872
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Agree for the first part and Disagree for the second. For the 100th time the Craig films are not ripping off the Bourne movies.



    I think it's hard to deny though that QOS clearly followed a certain style of cinematography that is currently very much in vogue and that was famously used (but not introduced) by Greengrass in the Bourne films. 'Ripping off' is different thing. I'm with you there. Applying the same aesthetics, on the other hand, is an objectively observable fact.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss
    Posts: 810
    DarthDimi said:

    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Agree for the first part and Disagree for the second. For the 100th time the Craig films are not ripping off the Bourne movies.



    I think it's hard to deny though that QOS clearly followed a certain style of cinematography that is currently very much in vogue and that was famously used (but not introduced) by Greengrass in the Bourne films. 'Ripping off' is different thing. I'm with you there. Applying the same aesthetics, on the other hand, is an objectively observable fact.

    Yes and no. The close cam and shakey cam, yes, but the long shots at the end, the silence and then music in the Tosca scene, no. Those were quite unique.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 7,797
    DoubleOhhSeven said:

    Agree for the first part and Disagree for the second. For the 100th time the Craig films are not ripping off the Bourne movies.



    I think the action in QOS (or at least the way it was shot/edited), was Bourne inspired. Other than that, no way.

    I do think they took the series in a more realistic direction BECAUSE of Bourne (in that the films inspired them to go back to basics), but didn't copy it, when they actually made the films they made them different (apart from the QOS action scenes). I think without Bourne we would've got a more down to earth, FYEO style 5th Brosnan film.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi
    Posts: 5,872
    THESIS 118

    Imperfect moments, technical or otherwise, from past Bond films should never be "fixed" for a future DVD/BR release.
  • VolanteVolante
    Posts: 774
    DarthDimi said:

    THESIS 118

    Imperfect moments, technical or otherwise, from past Bond films should never be "fixed" for a future DVD/BR release.



    Depends on what it is. Fixing colouring or whatever in an attempt to improve the quality of the picture, yes. Re-editing, no (except for QOS, which needs re-editing badly). With George Lucas' 'fixing' of the Star Wars films, he did make some small improvements on tiny things, but some big mistakes on others. Would hate to see that happen to Bond.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,632
    Agree. That's the charm of the films.
Add a Comment

Categories

In this Discussion