›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…108109111113114…190

Comments

  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited October 2012 Posts: 2,629
    Absolutely. Lazenby was crapped on, even though he met or even exceeded expectations filling Connery's shoes. The film was dismissed despite having one of the best written scripts, storyline, music and supporting casts simply because Connery took his ball and went home.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agree. It didn't matter how good the film was or Lazenby was (and I think the film was great and Lazenby was good), it would've been slammed anyway because Connery wasn't in it.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 169</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Conti's action suites for FYEO would have worked better in the 70's.</b></font>

    Agree with thesis. Disco was all but dead by then, but I guess Conti must have thought it would work for this. I for one feel it's a weak and uninspired effort.

    DarthDimi wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    OK, sorry DD. Let's get back on topic.

    No problem, sir! Here goes:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 170</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>OHMSS wasn't given a fair chance by critics, no matter what the quality of the film was.</b></font>

    Agree 100%. I lived this. No one wanted Connery replaced, yet alone by a rookie actor in his first film. And thus the rest of the film was taken far more lightly than it should have been. Now if the question was changed from OHMSS to Lazenby, I'd disagree.
  • 0iker00iker0
    Posts: 501
    170
    Agree 100%. One of the best movies, rated as one of the worse. And all because he have no connery.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    People just didn't sit comfortable with having a (then) unknown actor play the role, that was not only an Australian playing the part of British Agent James Bond 007, but an obscure new face coming in straight after Connery. George to this day, still gets castigated for his work, and while I never really was 100 per content to have an Antipodean play the part of James Bond, Lazenby actually did a fine job, and the movie itself wasn't too bad and Telly Savalas played a large part in making that work

    Thesis seems accurate
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2012 Posts: 23,634
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 171</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In '69, Hunt was interested in making a great Bond film, whereas Young would have been interested in delivering a great 007 as well.</b></font>
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 171</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In '69, Hunt was interested in making a great Bond film, whereas Young would have been interested in delivering a great 007 as well.</b></font>

    No brainer. Agree with thesis.
  • 0iker00iker0
    Posts: 501
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 171</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In '69, Hunt was interested in making a great Bond film, whereas Young would have been interested in delivering a great 007 as well.</b></font>
    Didn't Hunt deliver a great 007? I think Lazenby is a great 007, much better than Brosnan and Dalton at least, and he'd been higher if he had been in DAF showing the revenge side of Bond. So Disagree.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    IMO, Hunt left Lazenby more or less on his own during his first gig. I believe that Young would have guided him more intensely into becoming James Bond. ;-)
  • ThepastykidThepastykid
    Posts: 553
    Lazenby always says he was quite heavily coached into doing it 'like Sean'. Terence Young's shepherding of the young Connery does suggest that he would work with the leading man to make the style second nature and to get the character under the leading man's skin. So I agree with the second part, but don't have as strong an opinion of the first part.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    DarthDimi wrote:
    IMO, Hunt left Lazenby more or less on his own during his first gig. I believe that Young would have guided him more intensely into becoming James Bond. ;-)

    Absolutely DD, that was the Young M.O and why I agree. But it's not like George didn't have any help either, he had an all star killer cast of experience taking him under their wing. It seemed they knew Hunt wasn't going to do it. It's the cast that makes OHMSS great, certainly not George. He's an action hero type, they don't need to do much more other than fight well.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 171</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In '69, Hunt was interested in making a great Bond film, whereas Young would have been interested in delivering a great 007 as well.</b></font>

    Agree and disagree. Agree because the movie is a great movie. Disagree because he delivered us a new, different and raw Bond which sadly needed a little more coaching. But as we all know GL was not served well by those closest to him.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 172</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Adele's 'Skyfall' sets the tone for a more traditional Bond film.</b></font>
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    In this case, yes but other times it may just have been an attempt to get back to a classic 'Bond sound'.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I can't answer, for it is I that stand strong in the face of temptation. %-(
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,037
    It'll be a miracle if I can hold out until the 22nd.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Disagree because song doesn't mean film. They could make a Bond film that's as far as tradition as possible and slap a classic sounding song on it.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 172</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Adele's 'Skyfall' sets the tone for a more traditional Bond film.</b></font>

    Disagree: Purely because we have not seen the movie yet?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Disagree because song doesn't mean film. They could make a Bond film that's as far as tradition as possible and slap a classic sounding song on it.

    Agreed. I love the Moore era's theme music, but not a fan of the campiness.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2012 Posts: 23,634
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 173</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>TB should have relied a little more on smart causality instead of pure coincidence.</b></font>
  • VolanteVolante
    edited October 2012 Posts: 774
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 173</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>TB should have relied a little more on smart causality instead of pure coincidence.</b></font>

    I agree, while it's my favourite film and second favourite book, chance and luck play a large part in Bond's success. Just so happens that the man Spectre are going to use is in the same health clinic as him, just so happens that he gets into a fight with a Spectre operative, just so happens that the man he found dead has a sister so Bond plays a hunch to go to her, which turns out to be right. Then there's the mass of coincidences and luck once Bond makes it to Nassau.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,634
    Well put, @Volante. I agree with all you say. TB, while I enjoy it as one of the very best of the Bonds - or at least one of the most enjoyable of them - seems too much driven by chance and luck and too little by Bond's amazing talents to connect the dots.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    Volante wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 173</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>TB should have relied a little more on smart causality instead of pure coincidence.</b></font>

    I agree, while it's my favourite film and second favourite book, chance and luck play a large part in Bond's success. Just so happens that the man Spectre are going to use is in the same health clinic as him, just so happens that he gets into a fight with a Spectre operative, just so happens that the man he found dead has a sister so Bond plays a hunch to go to her, which turns out to be right. Then there's the mass of coincidences and luck once Bond makes it to Nassau.

    Agree: Could not have put it any better.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 172</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Adele's 'Skyfall' sets the tone for a more traditional Bond film.</b></font>

    I hope so.

  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Volante wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 173</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>TB should have relied a little more on smart causality instead of pure coincidence.</b></font>

    I agree, while it's my favourite film and second favourite book, chance and luck play a large part in Bond's success. Just so happens that the man Spectre are going to use is in the same health clinic as him, just so happens that he gets into a fight with a Spectre operative, just so happens that the man he found dead has a sister so Bond plays a hunch to go to her, which turns out to be right. Then there's the mass of coincidences and luck once Bond makes it to Nassau.

    But isn't that a trend in Fleming's books? It just so happens the SMERSH agent doesn't kill Bond (and ends up saving him) in CR, it just so happens Bond finds out Mr. Big is keeping the gold in the fish tanks in LALD, it just so happens Drax goes to the same gentlemen's club as M (and it just so happens he's a cheat to make M suspicious), etc. etc.

    It's Fleming's nature.
    Disagree.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Volante wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 173</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>TB should have relied a little more on smart causality instead of pure coincidence.</b></font>

    I agree, while it's my favourite film and second favourite book, chance and luck play a large part in Bond's success. Just so happens that the man Spectre are going to use is in the same health clinic as him, just so happens that he gets into a fight with a Spectre operative, just so happens that the man he found dead has a sister so Bond plays a hunch to go to her, which turns out to be right. Then there's the mass of coincidences and luck once Bond makes it to Nassau.

    But isn't that a trend in Fleming's books? It just so happens the SMERSH agent doesn't kill Bond (and ends up saving him) in CR, it just so happens Bond finds out Mr. Big is keeping the gold in the fish tanks in LALD, it just so happens Drax goes to the same gentlemen's club as M (and it just so happens he's a cheat to make M suspicious), etc. etc.

    It's Fleming's nature.
    Disagree.

    Good counterpoints, mate, especially about Drax and M both being Blades members.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited October 2012 Posts: 23,634
    One might wonder, however, if the film scripts benefit from that as well. One literary trick doesn't necessarily translate well on screen I'd think. And with the cinematic Bond much more a doer than a thinker in those days, I might still contest the counterpoints - although mightily strong - my good friend @JWESTBROOK made. ;-)

    Debate, gents! That's what this thread is for ultimately. ;-)
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    DarthDimi wrote:
    One might wonder, however, if the film scripts benefit from that as well. One literary trick doesn't necessarily translate well on screen I'd think. And with the cinematic Bond much more a doer than a thinker in those days, I might still contest the counterpoints - although mightily strong - my good friend @JWESTBROOK made. ;-)

    Debate, gents! That's what this thread is for ultimately. ;-)

    I think it translates well on film. It's part of the charm of a Bond film. The specialty isn't the coincidences, it's the fact that Bond is skilled enough to notice things the average person would miss. His training and instincts are what make him 'stumble' upon these coincidences, where the average person wouldn't know the difference.

    I think Fleming, and the films, use the coincidences to prove Bond's skill.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 401
    Thesis 172: Didn't set the tone of the film at all for me, just another mediocre Bond theme. The film's tone could be anything as far as I can see.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,049
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 173</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>TB should have relied a little more on smart causality instead of pure coincidence.</b></font>

    I think the fact that there's more coincidences in TB than the other films gave it that bit more charm, and helped it feel a bit natural. So I guess I'd have to disagree.
Sign In or Register to comment.