›

The theories of Bond films! What is your theory on the jungle hunt in OP?

1…202122232426»

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,099
    Connery was less over the top with his emotions. Like the look on his face when he knows Mr. Jones is an enemy. Or his sunglasses and shaking hand when sharing the bad news with Domino. When you think of a secret agent, they often would need to have a poker face. I think the lines between Bond and Vesper about armor are somewhat cliched but it is true that an emotional agent would not be very good at his job.

    I do wonder how the writers might have handled the hunt scene differently with another Bond. All the gags would be gone. I even think the wading out to the tourist boat would go. Only Moore and maybe Brosnan could get away with that. I do think the idea of a hunt for Bond could be done again with a more serious tone and a sense of danger. Danger from the villains and the wild animals roaming around.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,361
    mtm wrote: »
    Was anyone sucking in the stomach in that film more than Robert Shaw though? :)

    robert_1.jpg

    The oldest trick in the business.

    007HallY wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Yes, I like the the DAF toupee. It's a controversial opinion, but I think Connery looks good in DAF. The problem is his weight.

    I don't disagree. Honestly, for a 40+ year old man (especially in the late 60s/early 70s) he looks fine. Not his fighting weight as it were, and probably with better days ahead of him, but I think he was so tall and burly any weight through indulgence just kind of went into his frame. I know even Young told him to suck in his stomach by his second film (with the adage that 'Sean likes to eat') and he was 31 then! Like, for a 6'2 guy and an ex body builder anything below 90 kilos is unnoticeable anyway. Under 95 kilos it's a minor weight gain optically which is where I suspect Connery was at.

    Even with the extra weight, Connery still looks strong. It's not the end of the world.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 8:05am Posts: 19,020
    thedove wrote: »
    Connery was less over the top with his emotions.

    Over the top is a curious way of putting it; do you think Roger was being OTT because he showed a hint of panic? Like in the clown/bomb climax? He’s hardly bursting into tears. I don’t think that was OTT at all; I think that’s just acting, and compared to most other characters Bond is keeping quite cool. I think if we see Bond reacting like he knows he’s in trouble then it heightens the tension. For me Sean’s Bond could have done with a bit of that, he tends to veer towards being an invulnerable superman who knows he can get out of anything with a gadget and a quip.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,893
    There's a theatricality to Moore I guess you could say. But I'd say it's less him being OTT or unnatural in terms of his emotional range, and more just his individual acting style (ie. the eyebrow raises, the savouring of certain lines etc.) I'd argue in terms of showing Bond on edge/in legitimate danger he was the most convincing.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 6,099
    Moore was less subtle about his emotions. The scripts threw in jokes to diffuse tension but not the same as the humour in DN, FRWL or TB. This humour was rather intrusive and took away any sense of danger. The jungle sequence is a perfect example. "Hiss Off" "Sit" and the Tarzan yell all undermine the action and give you a feeling that Bond isn't really not in any risk.

    Aside from the bomb sequence in this movie and the bomb sequence in Spy, I am struggling to recall a time where i felt Moore's Bond was in any real danger. That made the transition to Tim all the more jarring. We had over a decade of a lighter Bond.

    People seem to claim that Connery's Bond just walked through things and never emoted. I don't think that is true. While it was subtle and below the surface often coming out in actions rather than words.

    I am not saying one is better than the other. They are different portrayals of the same character. Sometimes I am in the mood for a light breezy Moore film over a more dark and dangerous Connery, Dalton or Craig film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 2:27pm Posts: 19,020
    I just don't see much emotion or vulnerability in Connery's Bond, especially after FRWL (he gets to show a bit of anger at Kerim's death). Bond is more of a supercool cypher in the films after that, existing mostly to say quips and look clever. That doesn't change a huge amount with the change of actors but there are elements of humanity which start to drift in, and it isn't due to a lack of acting subtlety, it's a direction and writing choice. As someone put it:
    thedove wrote: »
    It seems some don't realize that scripts are tailored for the actor playing the character.
    ;)

    The closest ConneryBond comes to this sequence is maybe the junkanoo? And to be honest I'm not really feeling much desperation from Bond. He even suffers from a gunshot wound which has handily cleared itself up by the next scene. The jungle hunt did have too many gags which puncture its potential, but Bond still gets to show a little fear and panic, especially towards the end. Lazenby then had the icerink sequence, which lots of folks cite as him playing the vulnerability and fear of his predicament fairly well. It's a mild development of Bond's portrayal over the years, drifting in slightly more human elements as time goes along. NSNA shows the contrast, as Connery's Bond has been pickled in time in 1971 and revived in '83 without those additions.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    edited 2:56pm Posts: 2,361
    mtm wrote: »
    . NSNA shows the contrast, as Connery's Bond has been pickled in time in 1971 and revived in '83 without those additions.

    Yeah, that's the point.

    In any case, the Bond films had become more stunt-oriented than the earlier movies in the series. They had to give Moore something to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.