Stupid In A Bond movie?

245

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,327
    Let me give @Benny and everyone else here something really shocking to digest.

    The Bregenz Opera House from QOS has a number on its roof.
    wtndz32g7qqh.jpg
    That, my friends, is the speed of light in a vacuum, whose behaviour is described by quantum physics. Collectively, all types of light form the electromagnetic spectrum. The word spectrum was chosen by Newton after the Latin word for ghost, spectrum, which literally translates as spectre.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    Wow, @DarthDimi, you're really on to something. Are you sure you are safe after all those revelations? Oh yes, you are...SPECTRE has been eradicated by Safin and Obruchev.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,327
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Wow, @DarthDimi, you're really on to something. Are you sure you are safe after all those revelations? Oh yes, you are...SPECTRE has been eradicated by Safin and Obruchev.

    I have been keeping my mouth for years. But NTTD liberated me from that prison.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,726
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Wow, @DarthDimi, you're really on to something. Are you sure you are safe after all those revelations? Oh yes, you are...SPECTRE has been eradicated by Safin and Obruchev.

    I have been keeping my mouth for years. But NTTD liberated me from that prison.

    bmw8spxo0up9.gif

    @DarthDimi the truth is revealed

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    I'm sure someone from the House of Lords had a hand in it. The German word for that is "Oberhaus" (upper house). So someone named Oberhauser is likely to be part of that conspiracy.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,656
    This is all cuckoo.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,726
    Making Blofeld Bonds foster brother was all kinds of stupid.
    Cuckoo
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,371
    Benny wrote: »
    Making Blofeld Bonds foster brother was all kinds of stupid.
    Cuckoo

    The most stupid thing in all of the most stupid things happened in the history of the James Bond Franchise, going superlative here!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,327
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Making Blofeld Bonds foster brother was all kinds of stupid.
    Cuckoo

    The most stupid thing in all of the most stupid things happened in the history of the James Bond Franchise, going superlative here!

    I won't have that. Max the Parrott is worse
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,371
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Making Blofeld Bonds foster brother was all kinds of stupid.
    Cuckoo

    The most stupid thing in all of the most stupid things happened in the history of the James Bond Franchise, going superlative here!

    I won't have that. Max the Parrott is worse

    Yes, it's bad, imagine Bond and Melina getting their lead (about the ATAC machine) from a parrot? It's contrived.

    But it's not as bad as Bond and Blofeld being relatives, like why? Why it needs to happen? It's not fun, it's not entertaining!
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,726
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    Making Blofeld Bonds foster brother was all kinds of stupid.
    Cuckoo

    The most stupid thing in all of the most stupid things happened in the history of the James Bond Franchise, going superlative here!

    I won't have that. Max the Parrott is worse

    Yes, it's bad, imagine Bond and Melina getting their lead (about the ATAC machine) from a parrot? It's contrived.

    But it's not as bad as Bond and Blofeld being relatives, like why? Why it needs to happen? It's not fun, it's not entertaining!

    Well, Blofeld and Bond aren't actual relatives. A foster brother is not a blood relative.
    But the idea that they spent a lot of time together in their youth is a stupid idea, that should never have gotten past the idea stage. It's weak writing, that longtime fans would likely not except.
    Is there anyone who's okay with this storyline?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 7,854
    I'm going to play the "devil's advocate" role in this thread and say that not only do I miss the sillier aspect of bond, but I think its really what the franchise has been missing as of late. I think there is something in the secret sauce of Bond that means they have to be vague ridiculous, and provided they don't go TOO far, actually makes things more enjoyable and memorable. Say what you like about DAD but that laser satellite is far more cinematic and imaginative than whatever it was Greene had going on under the desert, or blofelds mass surveillance shenanigans. And whilst I realise that the Bond fights of Craigs era may be technically more hard-hitting, nothing has ever come close to topping the sword fight with Gustav Graves for the pure riveting fun-factor.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure those plots are more believable, more realistic and help ground the story in the real world but I couldn't give a monkeys about that. As far as I'm concerned Bonds world and ours are only tangentially linked. Bond doesn't have to obey traffic laws, he literally has a license to kill, and he can seduce a woman knowing that he doesn't the fate of the world may hang in the balance. He is effectively a law unto himself, and the villains he faces are similarly disconnected from our reality whether it be through extreme affluence, megalomania, ideology or a combination of all three. Secondly I think finales to Bond films have taken a turn for the worse ever since this irritating adherence to "realism" took hold. For me there's no better way to end a 007 cinema spectacle than having Bond disable some element of the enemies apparatus that it causes s**t to hit the fan until the villains men and Bond allies battle it out in a large scale brawl, while Bond weaves through the chaos to achieve his objective. I'm fed up of Bond being by himself, jogging through a cavernous building occasionally picking of the odd guard or ducking behind a pillar. It's just not that engaging. I want legions of men in boiler suits comically leaping out of explosions and lifelessly flopping off gangways, crater guns and impregnable metal shutters, ticking clocks and all those little things which used to be standard to a Bond adventure but disappeared.

    I was listening to a podcast a while ago in which someone said that in many ways the franchise peaked with Moonraker. At the time that seemed like a strange thing to say, but the more I think about it, the more it starts to make sense. The evolution from Dr No right through the connery and early Moore films finally came to full maturation in Spy and MR, and after that they couldn't really take it further, and that's why the idea of realism began to take more focus. But, I still think that if they want to prove that bond still has his mojo in 2026 then they should really go for broke, just like Cubby did with LALD and Spy and GE, and deliver the old-fashioned spectacle that many fans are crying out for. Make a Bond film that takes place in his luxurious, vibrant somewhat ridiculous world and not in our mundane tedious one. If EON have any life left in them they have to prove they can still makes Bond movies the old school way, deliver the old school escapism, and I promise you, when that bond theme kicks into full gear again the audience will go absolutely bananas.
  • JGFan007JGFan007 Somewhere in the Midwest
    Posts: 12
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,371
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!

    Did he actually said that? Because of what I knew and what I've read in some articles with those interviews of Connery, that he praised Roger Moore, and at one point Connery did told that Moore's Bond is what Bond should be, I think Connery would never said that to a close friend of his, he and Moore are both close friends, there's even a talk at the time that Connery would've liked to invite Moore to have a cameo in NSNA, but it didn't happened.

    But if there's one thing I remember was he detested the Dalton Era (and Dalton's Bond), because Connery though that Dalton underestimated the role, and didn't took it seriously, he'd also said that Dalton's Bond lacked the charm, suave and charisma that's needed for the role.
  • JGFan007JGFan007 Somewhere in the Midwest
    Posts: 12
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As far as stupid goes, sadly, I think Bond himself was kind of a dumb ass in some of the later films.
    He drags M to his childhood home just to get her killed and even worse gets himself killed 2 films later. :(
    If 007 can effortlessy put on clown makeup and a costume with just seconds to spare before an atomic bomb goes off, he could've escaped that damned island in NTTD.


    And the excuse that Craig's Bond is a different timeline to Moore, Connery, etc is just stupid.
    Bond is Bond regardless who plays him.

    That's my rant on The Stupid.

    However, I can let Tarzan yells, Bond in dungarees and elephants pushing Sherrif JW Pepper into the water slide.

    ^^ THIS!!^^

    Even in the earlier films, Bond had some shares of stupidity in him, the most primary example of this is when he'd thrown the ATAC machine far away in FYEO, like the whole movie focused on the retrieval of that thing, it's supposed to be his mission, yet at the end he'd decided to just thrown it away, and it's like the movie told us that it didn't made sense in the end, like it's not all worth it because at the end, he'd just thrown it away, it's not being selfish, but it's his job, he's given that mission (Melina's father even died because of it), Bond risked his life for that damn ATAC machine, yet at the end he would just thrown it away.

    Even his usage of that third nipple gadget in TMWTGG, doesn't makes sense either because the enemy would still recognized him given that his face was different from Scaramanga's, and not even thinking that this guy named Hai Fat given his connections to Scaramanga could have possibly met the real Scaramanga, and clearly knows what he looks like.

    Even in the earlier films, Bond had his shares of stupidity.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Even in the earlier films, Bond had some shares of stupidity in him, the most primary example of this is when he'd thrown the ATAC machine far away in FYEO, like the whole movie focused on the retrieval of that thing, it's supposed to be his mission, yet at the end he'd decided to just thrown it away, and it's like the movie told us that it didn't made sense in the end, like it's not all worth it because at the end, he'd just thrown it away, it's not being selfish, but it's his job, he's given that mission (Melina's father even died because of it), Bond risked his life for that damn ATAC machine, yet at the end he would just thrown it away.
    I totally disagree on that one, since the sole purpose of recovering the ATAC was to keep the Soviets to be the first to get their hands on it. It was a British-built code machine anyhow (and I suppose, not the only one), and remember:

    " I'm afraid we've lost our electronic surveillance ship, the St. Georges...
    My God, Jack. How deep is the water there? - Not deep enough, I'm afraid."

    The Brits did not need the ATAC. It's not like the Lektor in FRWL, since that was a Soviet machine that the Brits wanted. They only needed to keep the Soviets away from the ATAC. If the St. Georges had sunk into the Mariana Trench, they could have been relaxed about that. So ultimately, Bond's decision to destroy the ATAC, in a moment where General Gogol has the upper hand, was perfectly reasonable. Not a stupid scene at all...once one has digested the fact that Max the Parrot was the one who directed Bond to St. Cyril's in the first place.

  • JGFan007JGFan007 Somewhere in the Midwest
    Posts: 12
    Even in the earlier films, Bond had some shares of stupidity in him, the most primary example of this is when he'd thrown the ATAC machine far away in FYEO, like the whole movie focused on the retrieval of that thing, it's supposed to be his mission, yet at the end he'd decided to just thrown it away, and it's like the movie told us that it didn't made sense in the end, like it's not all worth it because at the end, he'd just thrown it away, it's not being selfish, but it's his job, he's given that mission (Melina's father even died because of it), Bond risked his life for that damn ATAC machine, yet at the end he would just thrown it away.

    FYEO ended with Bond successfully completing his mission, as always. I can't remember what exactly the Chief of Staff or Defence Minister told him in the 2nd briefing - when it was requested that he not muck it up again lol - but wasn't Bond tasked with retrieving the ATAC or doing anything possible to make sure it didn't fall into Russian hands? (If that happened, it was feared that the Soviets could instruct Royal Navy submarines to destroy their own cities).

    Any means possible would mean destroying it, if necessary. Wouldn't it be better to destroy the ATAC instead of allowing your enemy to acquire it? Sure, you also lose the computer but that's preferable to having it in the possession of another party. I can't recall if it was implied that the only working unit was on the St. Georges (I'm gonna have to watch FYEO and pay closer attention to this scene!), but it's possible the Royal Navy has more that one ATAC unit? Or they could build another one?

    Whatever the case, scuttling or destroying your own military's guns/ships/equipment to deny their use to your enemy is standard practice in the field. Particularly in the Navy. Bond didn't do anything "stupid" when he tossed the ATAC over the side of the mountain, and even Gen. Golgol knew that. He would have done the same thing, surely, if the situation was reversed. What other option did 007 have at that point? It would have been gross misconduct for him not to toss it away and destroy it lol. That certainly would have mucked it up ha ha.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,327
    A big load of stupid, one that deserves its own laugh track, is the following line in TND:

    "We're sending the fleet to China."

    Good luck. ;))
  • Posts: 2,550
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!

    Did he actually said that? Because of what I knew and what I've read in some articles with those interviews of Connery, that he praised Roger Moore, and at one point Connery did told that Moore's Bond is what Bond should be, I think Connery would never said that to a close friend of his, he and Moore are both close friends, there's even a talk at the time that Connery would've liked to invite Moore to have a cameo in NSNA, but it didn't happened.

    But if there's one thing I remember was he detested the Dalton Era (and Dalton's Bond), because Connery though that Dalton underestimated the role, and didn't took it seriously, he'd also said that Dalton's Bond lacked the charm, suave and charisma that's needed for the role.

    Yeah, no idea about Connery dismissing Moore either (although I do know he had a habit of saying things to the effect of 'oh, it's just a different take on the character' or 'there's a different appetite nowadays' when talking about Moore's Bond). I think the only Bond he had high praise for in the role was actually Craig.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,639
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    A big load of stupid, one that deserves its own laugh track, is the following line in TND:

    "We're sending the fleet to China."

    Good luck. ;))
    Of course you're right. But at the core of Bond novels as well as movies (though in the latter case much more tongue-in-cheek) is an underlying tendency by much of the population of dwelling on past empire days and pretending that UK still plays a role in international politics that is on the level of that of the superpowers. A feeling that may also be reflected in the Brexit decision. So the remark you quoted is really nothing special, and therefore not especially stupid.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,327
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    A big load of stupid, one that deserves its own laugh track, is the following line in TND:

    "We're sending the fleet to China."

    Good luck. ;))
    Of course you're right. But at the core of Bond novels as well as movies (though in the latter case much more tongue-in-cheek) is an underlying tendency by much of the population of dwelling on past empire days and pretending that UK still plays a role in international politics that is on the level of that of the superpowers. A feeling that may also be reflected in the Brexit decision. So the remark you quoted is really nothing special, and therefor not especially stupid.

    I know, I know. ;-) It's just rather funny that they went there.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I know, I know. ;-) It's just rather funny that they went there.
    Yes, it's funny, and maybe meant to be funny. Not so funny, 26 years later, is the thought of a British warship actually being attacked by what appears to be a Chinese fighter jet. They might actually send the remaining fleet there in reality. Times are crazy.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,327
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I know, I know. ;-) It's just rather funny that they went there.
    Yes, it's funny, and maybe meant to be funny. Not so funny, 26 years later, is the thought of a British warship actually being attacked by what appears to be a Chinese fighter jet. They might actually send the remaining fleet there in reality. Times are crazy.

    True. Which is why I am glad that the Bonds usually stay away from real-life politics.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,639
    That is actually one smart thing that Harry and Cubby realised from the beginning: That they should change the then-current cold war conflict to something else. And so the regular Soviets (Gogol and Pushkin), unlike in reality, come across as basically nice guys just doing their jobs, while the actual villains were rogue officers also acting against the interests of the USSR (or Russia, in GE) for their own gains or in the employ of others, be it SPECTRE (say, Klebb) or someone else (say, Orlov or Koskov). But the KGB top dogs ultimately appear as next-door neighbours which whom you would want to have a bottle (or two, three...) of vodka together. Maybe they bring their secretaries.

    It probably very much helped selling the Bond franchise in Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union, but I also wonder to what extent it contributed to making the public in Western nations underestimate the threat potential that there is still in Russia.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,861
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!

    NSNA lacks that je ne sais quoi...something that OP had, at least in all the egg/Sotheby scenes.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,656
    Let's go back. What was the first really stupid moment in a Bond movie? For me that would be in one of my favourites- Goldfinger. The HAD to know back then how utterly impossible it would be for any human on this planet to crush a golf ball in his hand. But they did it & we (as kids) all went 'holy crap he's TOUGH!'. But it was a small thing, not dwelt upon & had no effect on any other part of the movie. I can let it slide, easily. But that was where it all began IMHO. The jet pack, the burial at sea, then somewhere along the line they went Bondwacky & that's when we got Jaws. Then the Loony Tune antics like the pigeon and the Bondola & the half car still being driveable... jump to- Bond's foster brother. To the filmmakers, it was way more serious than a slide whistle sound effect or a Tarzan yell, but to me it was worse. To quote a line from Buffy The Vampire Slayer, "What were you thinking? Or were you even thinking at all??" Then the stupid cherry on top of all of this is James Bond, the man who never gives up no matter how dire the situation seems.... gives up.
    That's my rant & I'm sticking to it.
    :))
  • JGFan007JGFan007 Somewhere in the Midwest
    Posts: 12
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!

    Did he actually said that? Because of what I knew and what I've read in some articles with those interviews of Connery, that he praised Roger Moore, and at one point Connery did told that Moore's Bond is what Bond should be, I think Connery would never said that to a close friend of his, he and Moore are both close friends, there's even a talk at the time that Connery would've liked to invite Moore to have a cameo in NSNA, but it didn't happened.

    But if there's one thing I remember was he detested the Dalton Era (and Dalton's Bond), because Connery though that Dalton underestimated the role, and didn't took it seriously, he'd also said that Dalton's Bond lacked the charm, suave and charisma that's needed for the role.

    If Dalton lacked the charm, suave and charisma needed to play Bond, then what does it say about Daniel Craig?? Lol.
    I haven't heard many people say that they didn't like DC as Bond. In fact, most people rank him with Connery as the best to ever play 007 - but looking back on his tenure now, it sure wasn't very fun lol. I think Craig nailed the fabled "blunt instrument" aspect that Fleming gave the character. But, like Dalton before him, he took it all too seriously. And he easily had to have the fewest lines of any actor who played Bond (minus Lazenby, maybe)! He was a man of action, I guess. Not words.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,863
    I love the tribute of Connery by Brosnan! His Irish brogue was on point.




    A short clip about Sean's view of Roger Moore portrayal



    Great stuff here about Roger and his meeting with Guy Hamilton before LALD!

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,656
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I think Craig nailed the fabled "blunt instrument" aspect that Fleming gave the character. But, like Dalton before him, he took it all too seriously.
    Taking it all too seriously is an actor's job sir. That criticism should be leveled at the writers/directors/producers.
  • Posts: 15,729
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    JGFan007 wrote: »
    I can't stand NSNA. McClory had nearly two decades until he finally had the chance to release his version of Thunderball - and it was mostly, or even entirely, his story. And it was terrible! It starts with the ridiculous film title! How could they have expected it to be credible when the title sounds like a joke.

    What makes it even more embarrassing is that it had a big name director, prominent actors, and Connery's insistence on being able to provide his own input and approve certain elements of the film. I guess they couldn't expect much when they included Mr. Bean in the cast lol.

    To promote the film, Connery gave interviews where he dismissed the Roger Moore Era as Bond for being too silly and corny. And he called on fans to choose the true Bond film by supporting NSNA in theaters over Octopussy.

    What's really scary is that McClory said he wanted to release a third version of the film in the early 90's and make a few changes. One thing he wanted to do was have SPECTRE set up their evil HQ inside the Statue of Liberty!

    Did he actually said that? Because of what I knew and what I've read in some articles with those interviews of Connery, that he praised Roger Moore, and at one point Connery did told that Moore's Bond is what Bond should be, I think Connery would never said that to a close friend of his, he and Moore are both close friends, there's even a talk at the time that Connery would've liked to invite Moore to have a cameo in NSNA, but it didn't happened.

    But if there's one thing I remember was he detested the Dalton Era (and Dalton's Bond), because Connery though that Dalton underestimated the role, and didn't took it seriously, he'd also said that Dalton's Bond lacked the charm, suave and charisma that's needed for the role.

    I recall an interview around 1988 where he praised Dalton. Perhaps LTK changed his opinion of Tim?
Sign In or Register to comment.