›

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

1…34689…190

Comments

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I think the following films maintain a strong second half:
    * DN
    * FRWL
    * GF
    * TB
    * YOLT
    * OHMSS
    * MR
    * FYEO
    * OP
    * TLD
    * LTK
    * GE
    * CR

    Hence, I disagree with the thesis.

    I agree with DarthDemi
    most of the films have strong 2nd halves. the weak first halves can be seen in most of the Brosnan period as well as MR after the PTS. These films that take a nose dive in the second act are in the minority,.

    I really think GE and CR had a strong first halves.
  • BondgeekBondgeek
    Posts: 1
    Hi all. I've just discovered this community. Incredible to see so many people with huge amounts of knowlege of my favourite subject. Really interested in this first verses second half bit of the debate. I'm 48 years old now but in my younger years I shared a place with my sis and would subject her to hours of JB videos. My faves were TB and OHMSS (still are) she can take or leave JB so it was always good to get an impartial opinion from her. She loved the first half of TB as I do because it was very different and had a unique setting. Connery's one liners were great (my sis loved his cheekyness). After the plane crash she was asleep. The one she put up with the most was OHMSS because to her it was intersting and human and she stayed awake all the way through. She was bored after Bond arrived in Kentucky in GF. Bored after 10 mins of FRWL. Bored by most of DN but quite enjoyed DAF until he drops in on the oil rig. She thinks carry on Roger's films good for a laugh.
    I love the first halfs of the older films myself, the detective work, introducing characters, the byeplay with the MI6 staff. The newer ones start off with a wars worth of explosions and bullets....leaving nothing to build up to in the second. I put this down to lazyness and a lack of talent in the scriptwriters and directors world and a need to slavishly follow the styles of other films instead of having the guts to forge thier own unique path as in earlier films. The reason we got OHMSS was due to bravery and talent of all involved.
    Hope you all managed to stay awake through my ramble.....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    Welcome, @Bondgeek! I trust you'll enjoy your staying here.

    Please feel free to introduce yourself here:
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13/new-members-introduce-yourself/p1

    :-)
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    welcome Bondgeek! You sound like a knowledgable chap! You will have a wealth of subjects here to get involved in!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 007</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Had Guy Hamilton directed The Spy Who Loved Me, we would have gotten a better film.</b></font>
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,690
    I agree that Hamilton would have greatly improved TSWLM. A more relaxed Sir Rog, better humour, more interesting characters, more benign bizarre... But I wouldn't want Hamilton to direct MR - it's perfect as it is. I think a TSWLM more TMWTGG-esque would have been perfect. Mind, I really like TSWLM, but there is room for improvement.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    well? i for one liked everything about TSWLM! And as much as i liked the films that Hamilton directed? I thought that the film is one of RM's better films.
  • RogueThunderballRogueThunderball
    Posts: 306
    Absolutely not. Guy Hamilton is my least favorite director. He was terrible at delivering action and all of his movies have frustratingly slow paces. TSWLM is fine the way it is.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    No, it would have been an even more tired retread of You Only Live Twice instead!
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Samuel001 wrote:
    No, it would have been an even more tired retread of You Only Live Twice instead!

    Except the TSWLM script really didn't start recycling YOLT until Lewis Gilbert was hired as director and brought Christopher Wood along for the rewrite. Prior to that, Richard Maibaum's script involved SPECTRE being overthrown by younger terrorists who planned to use a nuclear weapon to attack the world's oil fields. If Hamilton hadn't left to direct Superman, TSWLM would probably have been a very different film both direction and story-wise than the one we have now.
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    But I wouldn't want Hamilton to direct MR - it's perfect as it is.

    Agreed. So I would say I'm glad Gilbert directed TSWLM since he then stayed and directed MR(my favorite of the non-faithful to the Fleming source novel films).

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 007</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Had Guy Hamilton directed The Spy Who Loved Me, we would have gotten a better film.</b></font>

    Not even close.
    After GF, Guy Hamilton gave the Bond series, some of the worst films of the lot. aside from LALD, Bond hit an all time low (imo)
    DAF although amusing is far from the Bond we would expect, with a laughable story and poor direction.
    TMWTGG, suffers also from poor direction and a story stuck in the 70's.
    Had Hamilton directed Spy, I would expect a poorer outcome than that of which Lewis Gilbert delivered.
    As much as it has its faults, it is (again imo) a bona fide classic in the Bond series.

  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    I don' t think Guy Hamilton would have really added much to The Spy Who Loved Me. (he probably would have detracted if anything.) I think the series had hit rock bottom with Golden Gun, so hiring a new director was a good decision. TSWLM is not a GREAT film, but it for sure has its moments and I suppose it is recalled as a classic Bond film by many which counts for something...I guess. A lot of people (including myself, once upon a time) say that TSWLM is Sir Roger's best, but I'm now leaning towards For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy. (And neither of those films are GREAT in my opinion, just good)
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    Although I can enjoy LALD and TMWTGG to an extent, it just seemed the films were getting lazy and cheap. I know the budget was raised for TSWLM but I think we got the best film we could of gotten with Gilbert instead of Hamilton
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Gilbert did a fine enough job with Spy as it is, I mean it's an entertaining two hours spent, lots to get involved in and I'm happy with what they gave us all these years later, would Hamilton have made it any better, we won't truly know since he didn't direct this time around, his last full Bond work was Golden Gun, and while one of my favorites of the series, there are certain aspects that I take issue with, let's not forget he was also in the chair for Live And Let Die, one of my best adventures although 71's Diamonds was an all round epic fail. Hamilton has other works to his name outside of Bond such as The Battle of Britain and An Inspector Calls that are fine work
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    In my opinion, probably not. I don't think Guy Hamilton would have given TSWLM as much action and intensity as Gilbert did. GF and TMWTGG are two of the dullest Bond movies ever, and I think he would have lowered the standards had he come back for a fifth. Gilbert at least understood action, and lots of it! That was the best part of TSWLM, since the story was basically a re-do of YOLT.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    Interesting ideas, people. After a two day hiatus I will soon add a new thesis but if anyone has anything else to add concerning thesis 007, please do it now. ;-)
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    No, TSWLM is the best Moore film. Why change it?

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited January 2012 Posts: 4,444
    007:

    TSWLM is Lewis Gilbert his best movie of all three he did. With Guy Hamilton we possible get John Barry for the music. Iam a big fan of DAF and Barry his music is less bad then he did for Moonraker of GF. But like for LALD iam happy Barry don't do the music for TSWLM. Or it should have made a better then score then he already did for OHMSS before he did TLD.

    FYEO , Octopussy (and QOS) never have been as there are if Guy Hamilton have direct TSWLM. All his 3 movies and TSWLM are very rankt high in my list. LALD 7th, TMWTGG 11th. DAF is rank 13th, TSWLM 12th.

    Lewis Gilbert other 2 are rankt lower. But in specialy Yolt have more to do with Ken Adam then with him. Like TSWLM, for MR you can say the movie is co directed by the credit directers. Because Albert Broccoli whant to make Moonraker insteed of FYEO after TSWLM and Harry Saltzman not produce TSWLM and also not the one since then.. Strange litle bit because he offical be the creater of the James Bond films (Source: Inside Dr No & Inside TSWLM).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 008</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Young Bond books should not be written. Bond's youth was never meant, by Ian Fleming among others, to be explored that deeply.</b></font>
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I have not read any young Bond books. I guess I feel about them the same way I feel about young Sherlock Holmes books -- sort of okay, I guess. Lukewarm. I really should read one and then make that decision. But I am not against them right off the bat. For one thing, if well done this would probably whet the reader's appetite for the real deal and lead them to Fleming. I would hope.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 007</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Had Guy Hamilton directed The Spy Who Loved Me, we would have gotten a better film.</b></font>

    After DAF and TMWTGG, the two worst entries until TWINE and DAD imho, I think we'd all had enought with Hamilton. TSWLM is fine the way it is.


    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 008</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Young Bond books should not be written. Bond's youth was never meant, by Ian Fleming among others, to be explored that deeply.</b></font>

    I completely agree. James Bond works best as a more enigmatic figure. In 22 films we've hardly learned anything about his pre MI6 life and that's what makes him so captivating. He like any great spy is a mystery who simply exists. Afterall iconic characters like Hannibal Lecture and Darth Vader were ruined in many people's eyes after their backstories were explored because of the simple fact that their mystique was taken away. It's for that reason I'll never read a young Bond novel.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 008</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7> <b>Young Bond books should not be written. Bond's youth was never meant, by Ian Fleming among others, to be explored that deeply.</b></font>

    This is a tough one. Yes, delving too deeply into Bonds past, takes away some of the mystery. But through the Young Bond Books, younger readers will discover the Fleming and continuation books...


    ... i'm going to disagree with this one.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    although i have not read any? If people are against these novels? Then surely they would be against the reboot of the films? As its a Bond not fully accomplished?

    I for one cannot see any harm in them, although i have no urge to go out and read one.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    As they don't interfere with Fleming's work I'm indifferent to it. The novels themselves though, are a good well rounded series.
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    Well, I've never read the Young Bond novels and have no intention of ever reading them. I'm pretty indifferent to the whole Young Bond series as a whole and don't have much of an opinion to it, honestly. :(
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I got some of the Young Bond books for my birthday in November but haven't got round to starting them yet. As people say going too deep may damage the mystery. That being said Fleming himself has given us an insight into how he perceived Bond as a youngster. We had his short film on Bond's youth and time at Eton as well as the obituary at the end of YOLT. We've also had The James Bond Biography by John Pearson, Fleming's assistant. So...no. I don't have a problem with Young Bond. If you don't want to know about Bond's past, don't read them.
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    No, I love them! Better then most of the continuations! They don't take away what Flemming wrote, they expand upon it!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    I don't want to read them. Only Fleming was authorised to add to Bond's personal record, IMO that is. Even the films never discussed Bond's youth in any particular detail. I simply don't accept anyone besides Fleming to make decisions considering where Bond comes from, it's blasphemous in my book. Perhaps I behave like a fundamentalist, a traditionalist even - I prefer the term 'purist' - but I cannot see myself reading these young Bond novels. That said, I certainly don't judge anyone who does.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    My younger cousin read the first Young Bond book and loved it. He knew I was a big Bond fan, so he asked me to show him some of the films. He now is a huge Bond fan thanks to those books. I'm not sure how I feel about the story actually being a prequel to Casino Royale, but if we get more Bond fans out of them, I won't argue.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,551
    We don't need the younger generation to grow into Bond this way. They will eventually find Bond when the time is right. Most of us saw Connery or Brosnan or one of the other guys when we were still very much in our childhood. It didn't stop us from becoming fierce Bond fans. Also, imagine a seven year old reading Young Bond and then subsequently developing a certain set of expectations. Next you show him LTK or FYEO. How will that work out, I wonder? I can't imagine the Young Bonds to come even close to these films, their spirit or their kind of Bond. I could be mistaken of course - I speak with no experience in the Young Bond series.
Sign In or Register to comment.