›

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

1…149150152154155…190

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    pachazo wrote:
    Perhaps if Lazenby had done more films he would have had the opportunity to get a script more suited to his style of humor.

    I certainly agree with that, @pachazo. Lazenby could and should have done more films, just to see him improve his acting as Bond. After all, some folks will argue that Moore and Connery didn't give their best performance as Bond in their first film either.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That Lazenby the man has a great sense of humour, has always been evident. He lacked direction and did a terrible Connery impersonation with a more human touch. That failed. He should definitely have done some more films, and gotten better direction. Lewis Gilbert was the first director to not try and direct the main star, and according to GL, Hunt was like that, too. That has never been verified by others, though. Hunt was clearly a great director, so who knows? He had his moments,though. When he is knocked out, he has a funny expression.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 271</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>George Lazenby's comedic reaction shots were the weakest compared to the other Bonds.</b></font>

    Agree, but to be fair to George it was his first BIG acting job.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    I'm going to have to agree with this one. Although, as much as it pains me to say it, Dalton's comedic reactions were pretty cringe-worthy too. As an actor that was clearly not where his strengths lied.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2013 Posts: 23,544
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 272</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The older Bond films (< 1990) deserved more Oscars en Oscar nominations than they actually got.</b></font>
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Certainly. Barry and Adam are the first who spring to mind. Especially Barry, it is a disgrace.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Couldn't agree more. How Barry and Adam never won for their contributions is unfathomable. Between them they received just one Academy Award nomination for their work (Adam for TSWLM). An utter sham.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    Darn tooting! Messrs Adam and Barry really deserved one. They should have got the award for You Only Live Twice. What other films were released in 1967 I wonder?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    Barry and Adam are gods in their fields. I say 'are' because Barry's legacy is powerful enough to consider the good man immortal. I'm glad you guys agree that it's a disgrace that they never got the little statue for their work on the Bonds.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Still, Hitchcock and Kubrick never won either so I think it's safe to say that the Oscars are not the be all and end all.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 272</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The older Bond films (<1990) deserved more Oscars en Oscar nominations than they actually got.</b></font>

    How some of the classic 007 theme songs missed an oscar is simply beyond me, and why John Barry never got any oscar for his music in the 007 francise is a big question, like Williams for SW he has been responsible for a sound that is so recognisable that even the non-fans recognise it.
    Ken Adams for his brilliant sets, MR for its special effects (which still stand up today).

    The older movies have been severely short changed by a biased oscar jury.

  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Definitely yes. At least for John Barry.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    WillyGalore wrote:
    Still, Hitchcock and Kubrick never won either so I think it's safe to say that the Oscars are not the be all and end all.
    Very true. Sadly, some artists do not get the widespread recognition that they deserve during their lifetime. Needless to say I agree with the thesis.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    edited December 2013 Posts: 3,236
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 272</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The older Bond films (< 1990) deserved more Oscars en Oscar nominations than they actually got.</b></font>

    Ye-up. The Bond films are (with some reason, I suppose, constantly over looked by serious film critics. The scores and theme songs and set designs definitely deserved it, and some of the moments in the early ones are genre-defining (I have two books on great moments in cinema and Bond is in neither. grr).

    EDIT: 1,000th post, yay!
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 272</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The older Bond films (< 1990) deserved more Oscars en Oscar nominations than they actually got.</b></font>

    Agree. Over the whole course of the series I would say that the Bond series has broke new ground in all aspects of movie making in my opinion. I just think they have pigeon holed it and do not recognise genuine talent not just up on the screen? But what goes on behind the camera too to make it happen!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,544
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 273</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The Fleming Bond is more battle-scarred than the average movie Bond.</b></font>
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    Absolutely. Even the more earth-bound Bonds like Dalton and Craig don't quite have that same jaded world-weary burnout feel that Fleming's Bond had. Atleast not to the same degree.

    Fleming's Bond often seemed like an agent who had just enough energy left for one last mission and was perputually running on fumes.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Can anyone really disagree with this statement?
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Agree whole heartedly with the thesis and as @Bain123 asks, I'd be amazed if anyone could justifiably disagree with it.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    Agreed, you can get away with more in a book then in a film.
    And to answer @royale65's question about the oscar wins for the last thesis Camelot Won Best Art Direction, Original song went to Dr. Dolittle and Score to Thoroughly Modern Millie.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I agree with the current thesis. Especially Fleming's post OHMSS Bond. The films (I'm looking primarily at you DAF) never dealt with Bond's depression after his wife's murder.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,421
    Thanks @Virage. I'd have given the oscars to Adam and Barry, tho ;-)
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 273</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The Fleming Bond is more battle-scarred than the average movie Bond.</b></font>

    Very much so, agreed.

  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 273</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The Fleming Bond is more battle-scarred than the average movie Bond.</b></font>

    Certainly, with the exceptions of Dalton, Craig, Brosnan at time, and Lazenby in the hypothetical sequel to OHMSS of which we were robbed.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2014 Posts: 23,544
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 274</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Re-casting Bond every few films is essential in keeping the franchise interesting.</b></font>
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    Posts: 3,236
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 274</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Re-casting Bond every few films is essential in keeping the franchise interesting.</b></font>

    This is about the most obvious one yet. Of course it does, what other option is there? Certainly Connery can't be Bond at age 83, so the options are to end the series after an actor wears out his welcome or recast the role.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    There are other ways to keep things fresh. Changing actor after a number of films is not the same as every few.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited January 2014 Posts: 13,929
    Not sure if I can agree with the thesis. I don't think re-casting after x amount of films is relevant to keeping the franchise interesting- but more so other factors such as whether the actor is still believable in the role at a certain age, whether the Bond character grows over the course of the films, and whether the producers can take a risk and successfully overhaul the franchise and/or tweak the formula like they proved with CR.
  • VirageVirage
    edited January 2014 Posts: 1,856
    It depends on who you cast. Lazenby and Brosnan did something similar to their predecessors, while Craig and Moore have done a very different Bond to their predecessors. So a No for me, it helps but isn't needed.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited January 2014 Posts: 23,544
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 275</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The tragedy of death was undersold most in the Connery film.</b></font>
Sign In or Register to comment.