›

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

1…147148150152153…190

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    6 years was too long. 4 years would have been perfect. Just the right amount if time for a break from Bond and could have given us a 3rd Dalton movie.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I always thought it had to do with some litigations going on of the McClory sort. I feel in this last thesis too much credit is given to the producers when it was just a matter of having taken a choice out of their hands.
    Sure in hindsight it was a nice lucky stroke for the franchise and allowed a new face to take over and they had plenty of time for the script.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,561
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 265</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>A) Spottiswoode was better with action than with characters, B) Apted the other way around.</b></font>
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    I don't think Spottiswoode was good with either action or character so disagree with A but I agree with B.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agree with both, definitely.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,333
    Agreed to Both.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Agreed to both but that just tells you how bad Spottiswoode was with characters because much of the action in TND feels generic.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 264</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By putting the Bond franchise on hold after LTK, the studios avoided 007 fatigue among audiences.</b></font>

    Disagree: I was always under the impression that the delay was due to the old age hassle of dealing with McClory again wasn't it?
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 265</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>A) Spottiswoode was better with action than with characters, B) Apted the other way around.</b></font>

    Going on both movies as I recall them to mind? I would have to agree with this thesis.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2013 Posts: 23,561
    Thank you @BAIN123 for the following thesis:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 266</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Compared to 006, Carver
    A) is a more convincing leader
    B) gets his hands dirtier during the film
    C) has a more convincing backstory.</b></font>
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    No to A
    Yes to B
    Yes to C
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,561
    A - Disagree. Janus may have seemed more 'guerilla' at first, but running that dish is impressive and in the end, Alec does it all by himself.

    B - Killing Paris... I agree, that's a pretty dirty deed.

    C - I'm rather impartial. I like both backstories.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    A. Not sure what that means, exactly. Abstain for now.

    B. Carver has Paris killed, but Trevelyan tries to kill Bond with his bare hands. I'll go with Trevelyan here.

    C. No, since Carver doesn't get much of a backstory as I recall. Trevelyan's backstory is a bit of a stretch, but it can be explained by his father committing suicide out of survivor's guilt. Trevelyan also benefits immensely from having been Bond's friend and near-equal. Carver has none of that.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    A. - Good question. It's difficult to say because they are so different. I can't say that Carver is more convincing though. Both men have different styles of leadership and I think that it works for them.

    B. - No, I think that his hands are less dirty than Alec's. He is on the stealth boat at the end but, other than that, what does he do besides give orders?

    C. - I agree. The story of a man who worked his way to the top of the newspaper industry and then became an extremely wealthy media mogul. His greed and ruthlessness, which served him well in the business world, ultimately became his undoing. Sounds a little less far fetched than a secret agent with a dark Cossack past.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited December 2013 Posts: 11,189
    pachazo wrote:
    A. - Good question. It's difficult to say because they are so different. I can't say that Carver is more convincing though. Both men have different styles of leadership and I think that it works for them.

    B. - No, I think that his hands are less dirty than Alec's. He is on the stealth boat at the end but, other than that, what does he do besides give orders?

    C. - I agree. The story of a man who worked his way to the top of the newspaper industry and then became an extremely wealthy media mogul. His greed and ruthlessness, which served him well in the business world, ultimately became his undoing. Sounds a little less far fetched than a secret agent with a dark Cossack past.

    You could say that about Alec though. He doesn't really do much more other than bark orders at people ("tell him now!", "prepare the dish", "find her" "get on with it") and give speeches.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    BAIN123 wrote:
    You could say that about Alec though. He doesn't really do much more other than bark orders at people ("tell him now!", "prepare the dish", "find her" "get on with it") and give speeches.
    All of the main villains give their fair share of orders but Alec is much more personally involved in the operation. The whole nature of the conflict is personal because of his betrayal. His physical attributes also allow him to be the one who goes after Bond at the end and not have to rely on his henchman.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Thank you @BAIN123 for the following thesis:

    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 266</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Compared to 006, Carver
    A) is a more convincing leader
    B) gets his hands dirtier during the film
    C) has a more convincing backstory.</b></font>

    Overall I would say disagree. He had no issues in killing his wife, the sailors from the sunken ship and also Gupta when he knew Gupta had done his job!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,561
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 267</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore replacing Connery was easier than Connery replacing Moore would have been.</b></font>
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 267</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore replacing Connery was easier than Connery replacing Moore would have been.</b></font>

    Moore benefited immensely from the Connery-Lazenby-Connery business. Without that, he would have had a similar fate to the Lazenator. On the other hand, Connery replacing Moore has no precedent, so it's hard to judge. I'll say that I disagree.
  • hildebrand_rarityhildebrand_rarity
    Posts: 316
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 267</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore replacing Connery was easier than Connery replacing Moore would have been.</b></font>

    Depends on which film Connery debuts with. If he started with DN, then id definitely go with the affirmative. Had he started with DAF, it would have been a very seamless transition. Had it gone SC Dr. No->RM LALD, I don't think Sir Rog would have lasted long, but coming off of DAF the audiences were coming off of camp, so RM benefitted greatly from DAF
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I agree as I believe that Sean Connery would have made a lousy Brett Sinclair, Ivanhoe or Simon Templar. ;)
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2013 Posts: 4,449
    Moonraker is Roger GF (I see it working with Connery) and TMWTGG is Roger Yolt. Dr No and Thunderball i see working with Roger Moore and mabey DAF too. But FRWL be dificult one, it be my favorite Connery movie and also because of Connery. I agree that Roger Moore as third Bond work better then Connery have been the third actor. Connery possible never playing Bond if he not playing him as first. He looks older, whyle Roger be older.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I suppose that I agree with this. If an even more youthful looking Roger Moore had done the 60's films and then Connery took over in the 70's it would have been quite the age contrast. Even though Connery is younger of course. It certainly worked better the other way around.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Agree. A fat Connery replacing a youthful Moore in 73 after presumably seven films, would have maybe gotten two films. Then a more mature Lazenby perhaps? after that would have been seen as the saviour of the series. What a weird timeline we might have gotten, as we see it now. If that was the case, George would have made more than one, maybe four, who knows? It is good as it is though.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 267</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Moore replacing Connery was easier than Connery replacing Moore would have been.</b></font>

    Agree I think. I say this in terms of how the world was at the time.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,561
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 268</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By now, Michael Wilson's contributions to the Bond films have become as important as Cubby's legacy.</b></font>
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,400
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 268</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By now, Michael Wilson's contributions to the Bond films have become as important as Cubby's legacy.</b></font>

    Absolutely. I don't think this is even up for debate; by this point, MGW has done as much for the series as Cubby did.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 268</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By now, Michael Wilson's contributions to the Bond films have become as important as Cubby's legacy.</b></font>

    Absolutely. I don't think this is even up for debate; by this point, MGW has done as much for the series as Cubby did.

    DISAGREE, Wilson builds on the enormous legacy build by Cubby, he and Barbara still have one major lesson to learn namely put the moeny spend on the big screen. These last two movies were expensive to make but seeing them I wonder where the heck all the money went to.

    Cubby gave us a great franchise and so far Wilson & Broccoli jr. have done far too little to become as important. imho

  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 268</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By now, Michael Wilson's contributions to the Bond films have become as important as Cubby's legacy.</b></font>

    Agree in the sense of protecting the franchise and its heritage. He is more recognised for his cameo's! Bless him!
    ;))
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 268</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>By now, Michael Wilson's contributions to the Bond films have become as important as Cubby's legacy.</b></font>

    Disagree. He's done some very important stuff with the franchise, but I don't think anything will compare to Cubby's starting the series and delivering its glory days of the 1960's.
Sign In or Register to comment.