It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
A bond film should be coarse and dry, not smooth and slick.
It's funny that you claim to know what Bond in the novels was like, yet you entertain the notion of the codename theory. I mean, the Bond in the books is one man...
I'm not saying it's a bag of wise cracking cliches, which EON itself misunderstood in the past. Rather, he's is a relatively smooth (he is English after all) refined spy with an edge, drawing from Fleming's character. What may appear perfect on the written page may not translate perfectly to the screen, which is why some finessing is required in my view.
PS: - I'm still waiting for the Turner vid post to show why he is a perfect filmic Bond.
But look at all the times they DID draw heavily from the books: DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, CR.
You would have a hard time arguing that EON did a better job just winging it than when they were relying on the written page of Fleming.
I don't understand where this separation comes in between the mediums. How is it impossible to capture what Fleming wrote with a cinematic lense? I don't see the disconnect. Especially with WB greenlighting R rated deadpool, BvS, batman solo film etc.
Dalton described what the Bond films should be best as: "action adventure thrillers for adults, that children could enjoy too."
1. Dalton: it seems unfair to rank him so high as he only had two films but both were of the same dark gritty tone that I kind of want out of my bond films.
2. Craig: it's is unfair to rank him second as I prefer Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace to pretty much any other bond film but the issue much like Connery his films became much more well humor filled and less grounded in reality Skyfall was ok and Spectre was also just ok. Certainly not bad by any stretch of the imagination and much better then some of Moore's and Bronsnan's films but on a whole Craig never seemed to match the grittiness and bad assaray of the first two films he did if he comes back for Bond 25 with a new director and a strong plot it might be better then the last two and he might beat out Dalton but as it stands...
3. Connery: maybe because I have recently been rewatching his films or maybe because I just have more appreciation for him Connery's tenure feels similar to Craig and to be honest Brosnan's tenure in that they are all great in the first two films but then the plots began to get more and more far fetched leading to well... I plan on watching You Only Live Twice this Sunday and will review it in time..
4. Moore: oddly enough his films almost went in reverse compared to some of his collegues getting more serious toward the end of his tenure (for your eyes only and Octopussy being stand outs) plus I like Moore's humor in Live and let die and The Man with the golden gun of course having the most films also means having the most weakest bond films as well (or tied with Connery as I consider half of his weak too) but like wise the most films also means the most strongest films too both FYEO and Octopussy rank quite high The spy who loved me is also fantastic I even like Live and Let die however The man with the golden gun A View to a kill and Moonraker are all well yeah..
5. George Lazenby: yes he is slightly wooden yes he is a prick in real life yes I wanna smack him but I honestly think Ohmss is a fantastic film I plan on seeing his other full performance as 007 In Diamonds Aren't forever when I get to it chronologically (I am guessing in October) but we shall see
6. Pierce Brosnan: there has to be an actor who come in "last" and sadly Brosnan is it (though he is the last of the official actors however I have 3 more spots I am going to discuss) and I like him as bond Goldeneye is great The World is not enough is great tomorrow never dies is really fun even Die Another Day has it's wonderful mom
Books are an imaginative medium primarily. Which is why we have different opinions even among Fleming 'purists'. Each ascribe constructs to what they read based on how they themselves imagine it.
I agree with you that winging it is not the way to go. That's not what I'm saying. This is not about 'absolutes'. It's about taking the unique essence of Fleming's character and improvising it for the times firstly (many here have advocated for example that we not go back to 60's Bond in another thread) and also for what works best in the film medium.
I think some actors capture the 'balance' better, and some even do it really well in some films and then blow it (relatively speaking) in other films in the canon. The quality of the film, script & production help too of course.
That's fine, but I would still like EON to make an effort. I understand that you can't make a film with a 200 million dollar budget, with next to no action in it, like the books do. But I expect them to TRY to capture the mostly thriller feeling of the books. If they choose to use the Fleming novels to fix a wobbily chair like they did during the Brosnan era, IMO that's indefensible. That's just action hero called James Bond, it has nothing to do with spying or the Bond character as he was written.
Judging from the fans, there are currently two frontrunners in the race to be Bond: Aidan and Tom. These two actors represent a fork in the road for EON. And I don't know about you, but I don't want to be lining up to see the Hiddlebrand Rarity in 2018. I thought that type of bowtie twirling antics died out in the seventies.
I'm not sure whether sticking to Fleming's dictum is ALWAYS the right thing to do as things do change over time. Heck, Fleming seemed to change his own attitude to his books as the series went along. I always like how he referred to them as "high-flown, romanticised caricatures" at the end of YOLT.
Where I disagree is your view that Hiddles represents a wet handkerchief. That's a matter of opinion of course. I think he would bring a little more welcome smoothness to the table than Craig. That is quite different from 'all out camp'. I'm basing that purely on his screen charisma and acting that I have seen to date. Not his looks.
I'm open to Turner. I'm still waiting for more conclusive evidence of his suitability though.
New tab, images, type Aidan Turner. You're welcome.
The rest is very hard to rank.
After Spectre I'm tempted to rank Craig second but it's really Moore/Brosnan/Craig/Connery as a tie.
Good one.
2. Connery: Like Dalton, Connery also has two films in my top 5 (Dr. No and From Russia With Love), both of which are what every future Bond film should aspire to be. Connery's effortless cool set the franchise up for the long term success that its enjoyed, and he would, in my book, have a much better chance at the top spot if it weren't for the fact that his time in the role went out with a whimper.
3. Moore: I think it's a bit unfair to rank Moore along with the rest of them. Or, rather, it's unfair to Moore, as I think he's set his interpretation up as something else entirely. On some days I could even make a case for him as the best of them, as his films, at least once you get the abysmal first two out of the way, are consistently entertaining and are always good for a fun couple of escapist hours.
4. Craig: He'd be higher if it weren't for Spectre. His tough, no-nonsense approach to the role was like a breath of fresh air after the disappointing Brosnan Era, and three of his four films make my top 10. The problem is Spectre, which taints the tenure significantly, and may be the worst of the franchise.
5. Brosnan: I like the idea of Brosnan as Bond more than I actually like him as Bond. I've always been a Brosnan fan, at least when he's in roles away from Bond. Part of the failure of his tenure rests squarely with EON, who didn't know how to use him and stupidly tried to make Bond into some kind of Rambo-esque action figure.
6. Lazenby: He's just not a very good Bond. And, even more disappointing, is that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is wasted on somebody with no acting talent, plus someone who was making their debut in the role. That film should have been handled by an actor who had some time served in the role. Anyway, it's Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas that carry OHMSS across the finish line and make it the great film that it is. A weaker supporting cast would have spelled doom for it, as Lazenby proves incapable of carrying the film in a way that a Bond actor should be able to.
Totally agree with you on Fleming's Bond. Totally disagree on Hiddleston. I think he would be good at the Bond role ala Ian Fleming. He just played a similar part in The Night Manager. I don't really consider Turner at all other than his voice isn't right and I feel he lacks screen presence. Based on seeing Poldark, Eon would be reverting back to a boring Brosnanesque casting choice with Turner.
Those are my exact thoughts on Hiddleston. Sure, he brings in the teenage girls market, but I don't think we should be thinking in terms of who can guarantee the most bank at the box office. As fans, we should be above that flash in the pan nonsense.
In fact, I think it would be a cool idea to see how Bond operates with a "normal job" and then he's suddenly pursued back into the spy field.
If you swap 2 and 3 we are the same.
And to this day, Connery remains the consummate Bond. I don't know if that will change, to be honest. He was just so good.
Absolutely. I think it has also to do with the quality of the movies. The 60's were such a great decade to make Bond movies. Everything has a timeless quality. Just look at the clothes of the women and Bond himself. The sets, the music, etc.
I think it more like Terrence Young had a more dark approach to the character than Hamilton or Lewis Gilbert that's why Sean Connery was more dangerous with his direction.
I don't discredit what he( Terrence) did to help Connery to make a great Bond but that more dangerous side came from the tone of the film than how the director asked Sean Connery to act.
The most notable is in the looks he gives. He doesn't fool around in the Young films. In GF, there are several 'goofy' moments or expressions, like in the car with Tilly, and in the plane toilet with the shaving cream. Much more smirking and less menace. In the Young films the humour comes more from the dialogue & wit (my preference).
It's also in the suits, which are more cleanly cut and designed for a man of action in the Young trilogy. It is in GF for example that we see the more 'formal' but showy 3 piece affair, which has admittedly gone on to become very iconic.
Finally, it's also in his 'gait'. I notice a more gliding, almost feline prowl to his movements in DN, FRWL & TB than I do in GF & YOLT. I won't even mention DAF.
So yes, definitely darker films, but a little more too imho.
I also prefer the films of Terrence Young and I agree Sean gave a better performance with him but I just think what his performances in Dr No and from Russia with love more dangerous is the way Terrence sees Bond opposite Guy Hamilton or Gilbert.
Each director has a different view on Bond and it's so clear when you get to see from them more than one film their particular style is obvious and influencesee the performance of the respective Bond.
Another thing is how each actor gets along with the director and if they are on the same page.
Like Connery aND Terrence or Moore and John Glen .
and the opposite Glenn and Dalton who didn't get along at all and we know the results