Controversial opinions about Bond films

1484485487489490705

Comments

  • mybudgetbondmybudgetbond The World
    Posts: 189
    I wish Lazenby had continued.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    DAF is nothing more than a stain on the series. Connery is in poor shape, his weight gain is noticeable and he doesn't look the least bit interested in the film. I dislike DAF immensely. Watching Connery in DAF, is like watching a past his prime Ali.
    I get your point, but a past his prime Ali was still Ali (which is to say, the 'greatest'), and I feel the same way about Connery in DAF.

    Perhaps this is the difference between the Bond aficionados and the general public - when you watch DAF, you see Connery's performance as part of his entire legacy, one of a string of performances that defined the role. Whereas perhaps the average punter sees it and says, "who's that tired old chap wandering around Vegas?"
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    octofinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    DAF is nothing more than a stain on the series. Connery is in poor shape, his weight gain is noticeable and he doesn't look the least bit interested in the film. I dislike DAF immensely. Watching Connery in DAF, is like watching a past his prime Ali.
    I get your point, but a past his prime Ali was still Ali (which is to say, the 'greatest'), and I feel the same way about Connery in DAF.

    Perhaps this is the difference between the Bond aficionados and the general public - when you watch DAF, you see Connery's performance as part of his entire legacy, one of a string of performances that defined the role. Whereas perhaps the average punter sees it and says, "who's that tired old chap wandering around Vegas?"
    That's quite true. I also come at it with the benefit of time, because I wasn't around for Connery's EON run. If I had seen it live as it unfolded, I may have been far less forgiving.
  • Posts: 15,785
    I prefer the Connery of DAF to YOLT. I really don't mind his look in DIAMONDS, and he is far more enthused and engaged in the film.
    Although not quite as fit as he was in the earlier films, I don't think that holds him back and he has more energy than in YOLT.

    As for Guy Hamilton, he kept to his formula in all four films he did. Similar narrative structure. Same with Gilbert. I'd say the three Gilbert Bonds are very similar in tone and style. I'm personally glad neither of them tried to copy or emulate Terence Young, because it gave variety in the series, and still maintaining the classic traditions.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2018 Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I prefer the Connery of DAF to YOLT. I really don't mind his look in DIAMONDS, and he is far more enthused and engaged in the film.
    Although not quite as fit as he was in the earlier films, I don't think that holds him back and he has more energy than in YOLT.

    As for Guy Hamilton, he kept to his formula in all four films he did. Similar narrative structure. Same with Gilbert. I'd say the three Gilbert Bonds are very similar in tone and style. I'm personally glad neither of them tried to copy or emulate Terence Young, because it gave variety in the series, and still maintaining the classic traditions.
    I agree. Well put.

    You raise an interesting point about Connery in DAF. He does seem more 'interested', and given film is a moving, audio visual medium I 'feel' that enthusiasm, despite his more aged and pudgy look.

    As for Hamilton, Gilbert and Young, I really enjoy most of their films, and again agree that they have their distinct styles, which helped to shape 'classic' Bond and our expectations of what to expect from this series. When I think of a Bond film, I instinctively visualize elements from the best of the Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt films.

    Less so Mendes, Campbell or Glen, even though I like some of their films a lot too.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,655
    I wish Lazenby had continued.
    And I am terminally glad he didn't. Worst Bond ever. Without him OHMSS might have been the best movie of them all.
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    Always hated DAF, couldn't stand that USA friendly humor and locations.
    But after recent rewatch it grew up on me a lot.
  • Posts: 15,785
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I prefer the Connery of DAF to YOLT. I really don't mind his look in DIAMONDS, and he is far more enthused and engaged in the film.
    Although not quite as fit as he was in the earlier films, I don't think that holds him back and he has more energy than in YOLT.

    As for Guy Hamilton, he kept to his formula in all four films he did. Similar narrative structure. Same with Gilbert. I'd say the three Gilbert Bonds are very similar in tone and style. I'm personally glad neither of them tried to copy or emulate Terence Young, because it gave variety in the series, and still maintaining the classic traditions.
    I agree. Well put.

    You raise an interesting point about Connery in DAF. He does seem more 'interested', and given film is a moving, audio visual medium I 'feel' that enthusiasm, despite his more aged and pudgy look.

    As for Hamilton, Gilbert and Young, I really enjoy most of their films, and again agree that they have their distinct styles, which helped to shape 'classic' Bond and our expectations of what to expect from this series. When I think of a Bond film, I instinctively visualize elements from the best of the Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt films.

    Less so Mendes, Campbell or Glen, even though I like some of their films a lot too.

    I believe Connery had some say in the script for DAF, according to Mankiwicz on the Inside DAF documentary. Sean was really into the dialogue regarding other characters. He also seemed to really like the script's structure as far as a beginning middle and end. So that part of the process must have contributed to his enthusiasm.
    I loved Hamilton's tradition of ending his films with a mini fight scene, and Gilbert's larger than life Ken Adam sets for the villain's lair.
    Glen also had specific obligatory elements in his films. I suppose if I were to pick one favorite director it would still be Young.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Terence Young is definitely the greatest Bond director of all time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I prefer the Connery of DAF to YOLT. I really don't mind his look in DIAMONDS, and he is far more enthused and engaged in the film.
    Although not quite as fit as he was in the earlier films, I don't think that holds him back and he has more energy than in YOLT.

    As for Guy Hamilton, he kept to his formula in all four films he did. Similar narrative structure. Same with Gilbert. I'd say the three Gilbert Bonds are very similar in tone and style. I'm personally glad neither of them tried to copy or emulate Terence Young, because it gave variety in the series, and still maintaining the classic traditions.
    I agree. Well put.

    You raise an interesting point about Connery in DAF. He does seem more 'interested', and given film is a moving, audio visual medium I 'feel' that enthusiasm, despite his more aged and pudgy look.

    As for Hamilton, Gilbert and Young, I really enjoy most of their films, and again agree that they have their distinct styles, which helped to shape 'classic' Bond and our expectations of what to expect from this series. When I think of a Bond film, I instinctively visualize elements from the best of the Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt films.

    Less so Mendes, Campbell or Glen, even though I like some of their films a lot too.

    I believe Connery had some say in the script for DAF, according to Mankiwicz on the Inside DAF documentary. Sean was really into the dialogue regarding other characters. He also seemed to really like the script's structure as far as a beginning middle and end. So that part of the process must have contributed to his enthusiasm.
    I loved Hamilton's tradition of ending his films with a mini fight scene, and Gilbert's larger than life Ken Adam sets for the villain's lair.
    Glen also had specific obligatory elements in his films. I suppose if I were to pick one favorite director it would still be Young.
    Interesting to learn that about Connery. Yes, I suppose that contributed to his interest. If the actor is more involved in the process it's likely to show in the finished product.

    I'd say Young is easily my favourite too. He brought the best out of Connery imho - he just seems so much more deadly and lethal in Young's films, and infinitely cool and suave as well. He moves the best in those films too.
  • @bondjames I absolutely agree regarding Young bringing the best out of Connery. Even the way he moves. You nailed it. He's like a cloud of death moving over the films there. He inserts himself in a situation and death follows, whether we agree with his actions or not.

    Also, on the point of Connery's last two (official) performances, I have trouble understanding when people say they think he's better in YOLT than in DAF because to me he seems so obviously more engaged in the latter, and since that film functions best when viewed as a black comedy, his performance works in favor of that. He looks like he's having a blast. I think the only advantage is that he is more fit in YOLT, but that doesn't play all that much in overall performance, although it certainly should be considered.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    Terence Young is definitely the greatest Bond director of all time.

    Agreed and yet...

    I'd make a case for Peter Hunt being the best director on degree of difficulty alone: Lazenby, the melting snow, and the downer ending.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,050
    Speaking of Peter Hunt, I did a project at school last based on editors. I chose Peter Hunt. He's definitely the best editor of the series. My second choice would have been Stuart Baird, as he's my second favorite editor on the series.
  • Posts: 14,799
    octofinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    DAF is nothing more than a stain on the series. Connery is in poor shape, his weight gain is noticeable and he doesn't look the least bit interested in the film. I dislike DAF immensely. Watching Connery in DAF, is like watching a past his prime Ali.
    I get your point, but a past his prime Ali was still Ali (which is to say, the 'greatest'), and I feel the same way about Connery in DAF.

    Perhaps this is the difference between the Bond aficionados and the general public - when you watch DAF, you see Connery's performance as part of his entire legacy, one of a string of performances that defined the role. Whereas perhaps the average punter sees it and says, "who's that tired old chap wandering around Vegas?"

    I'd say from experience people from the general public are far more indulgent towards DAF because Connery is in it. One of the reasons why I think another Lazenby would have killed the franchise regardless of the tone they'd have gone for.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production
  • Posts: 17,241
    Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production

    Has that been mentioned somewhere?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited December 2018 Posts: 4,382
    Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production

    Has that been mentioned somewhere?

    IMDB trivia said he had affairs with both of them...at the same time. He's a legend
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames I absolutely agree regarding Young bringing the best out of Connery. Even the way he moves. You nailed it. He's like a cloud of death moving over the films there. He inserts himself in a situation and death follows, whether we agree with his actions or not.

    Also, on the point of Connery's last two (official) performances, I have trouble understanding when people say they think he's better in YOLT than in DAF because to me he seems so obviously more engaged in the latter, and since that film functions best when viewed as a black comedy, his performance works in favor of that. He looks like he's having a blast. I think the only advantage is that he is more fit in YOLT, but that doesn't play all that much in overall performance, although it certainly should be considered.
    Agreed @ThighsOfXenia. I notice it most often when I view the early films back to back. There's a certain sleek gracefulness to his movements in the Young films, combined concurrently with vigor and power. It's in his glance and stare as well. It's animal like in a way - as though he can change direction at any time and snap you despite the immense charm and beguiling mannerisms. I don't feel that in GF for instance (except perhaps during the PTS), although he's arguably more cool and charming in that film. So I've always believed that it must be Young's influence.
    --

    Regarding my earlier remarks about Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt having set the standard for cinematic Bond, I'd like to add that I think the directors who have been most successful afterwards are the ones who have captured the attitude of those early films in their efforts. It's not so much about the tropes that were introduced and made iconic in the past, but more the spirit or essence.
  • Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production

    Has that been mentioned somewhere?

    IMDB trivia said he had affairs with both of them...at the same time. He's a legend

    Yes, and I think there's a fair deal of documentation about how miserable he was on the YOLT shoot.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Ludovico wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    DAF is nothing more than a stain on the series. Connery is in poor shape, his weight gain is noticeable and he doesn't look the least bit interested in the film. I dislike DAF immensely. Watching Connery in DAF, is like watching a past his prime Ali.
    I get your point, but a past his prime Ali was still Ali (which is to say, the 'greatest'), and I feel the same way about Connery in DAF.

    Perhaps this is the difference between the Bond aficionados and the general public - when you watch DAF, you see Connery's performance as part of his entire legacy, one of a string of performances that defined the role. Whereas perhaps the average punter sees it and says, "who's that tired old chap wandering around Vegas?"

    I'd say from experience people from the general public are far more indulgent towards DAF because Connery is in it. One of the reasons why I think another Lazenby would have killed the franchise regardless of the tone they'd have gone for.

    I have to agree there. The general public as well as casual Bond fans embraced Connery regardless of his age, physique or even quality of the Bond film. It's Connery as Bond and that was enough for many. Sean could have been playing Bond in FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY, and the public would flock to it.

    That said, I love Lazenby as much as anyone on here. He's my hero. However, he was not an experienced actor. He had a director who already knew the Bond films inside and out from experience, an excellent script to back him up, and an amazing supporting cast behind him. That plays a huge part in him coming off as well as he did in the film. I do feel there are still some dialogue scenes in which he isn't quite comfortable; Draco meeting, and the first Blofeld meeting for instance. However he's excellent in the M scene as far as I'm concerned.
    I'm not so sure another director would have been able to pull the performance out of him the way Hunt did. Maybe Terence could have? Either way the general public simply didn't embrace him as Bond the way hard core fans do today.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    octofinger wrote: »
    Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production

    Has that been mentioned somewhere?

    IMDB trivia said he had affairs with both of them...at the same time. He's a legend

    Yes, and I think there's a fair deal of documentation about how miserable he was on the YOLT shoot.

    Yeah i heard he was underpaid and the press was all over him.
  • Posts: 15,785
    octofinger wrote: »
    Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production

    Has that been mentioned somewhere?

    IMDB trivia said he had affairs with both of them...at the same time. He's a legend

    Yes, and I think there's a fair deal of documentation about how miserable he was on the YOLT shoot.

    Yeah i heard he was underpaid and the press was all over him.

    Reporters followed him into the bathroom and asked him idiotic questions while he was sitting on the can. That annoyed him greatly.
  • Posts: 17,241
    Connery in DAF was less better looking but more engaged. He doesn't really sleepwalk through it like some think. Also, I believe he was having a blast on set, shagging Lana and Jill, and taking in Vegas while making a boatload of money. Opposite of his YOLT production

    Has that been mentioned somewhere?

    IMDB trivia said he had affairs with both of them...at the same time. He's a legend

    MV5BOGY0M2RkYjYtNTE4MS00YzA3LWIyNzgtYzk0Mzc4M2FmMGQ4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMzk5OTkyNDE@._V1_.jpg

    He certainly seemed to enjoy himself in behind the scenes photos. Wouldn't be surprising if he made the most out of his Vegas stay in any way possible.

    latest?cb=20170324114737
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2018 Posts: 5,921
    Controversial opinion: the series would have not lasted nearly as long had they filmed the books in order. Cubby had a way of knowing which film to shoot when, and capitalized on JFK's love for FRWL to kick-start the franchise.

    It's hard to imagine CR getting as much attention as DN in '62, a pre-civil rights '63 LALD aging well at all, etc. And I'm not even sure Eon had the rights to MR in '64 so that would have been a problem.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,811
    Not sure if it’s controversial, but I find TB just as amusing as anything in DAF
  • echo wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: the series would have not lasted nearly as long had they filmed the books in order. Cubby had a way of knowing which film to shoot when, and capitalized on JFK's love for FRWL to kick-start the franchise.

    It's hard to imagine CR getting as much attention as DN in '62, a pre-civil rights '63 LALD aging well at all, etc. And I'm not even sure Eon had the rights to MR in '64 so that would have been a problem.

    Interesting point. I used to be frustrated that they'd filmed it out of sequence, chopped up the plots and titles, and so on. But now that you frame it this way I'm inclined to agree with you.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    echo wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: the series would have not lasted nearly as long had they filmed the books in order. Cubby had a way of knowing which film to shoot when, and capitalized on JFK's love for FRWL to kick-start the franchise.

    It's hard to imagine CR getting as much attention as DN in '62, a pre-civil rights '63 LALD aging well at all, etc. And I'm not even sure Eon had the rights to MR in '64 so that would have been a problem.

    Wait...why wouldn't EON have the rights to MR in 64? I thought they had the rights to all Fleming Bond novels past and future in '62 (minus CR of course, the issues surrounding TB and Fleming's request of not using anything from the content of TSWLM - except the title.)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2018 Posts: 5,921
    Eon got the MR rights in 1969. I suppose they reverted to Glidrose after the agreement with the Rank Organization expired? In retrospect we're lucky we didn't have another TB/CR competing film situation!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker_(novel)
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    echo wrote: »
    Eon got the MR rights in 1969. I suppose they reverted to Glidrose after the agreement with the Rank Organization expired? In retrospect we're lucky we didn't have another TB/CR competing film situation!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonraker_(novel)

    Wow! Learn something new every day - that seems fairly risky from EON not to get the MR rights til then (especially considering CR 67, all the knock offs and McClory floating around at that precise time.) Then again as soon as Neil Armstrong put a foot on the moon, Cubby and Harry said - 'get me Moonraker!'
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2018 Posts: 5,921
    I guess Fleming was pretty eager to sell the film/TV rights to his novels. We're lucky that we got the steady hand of Cubby to keep the series going...and we probably got the right films, despite some major missteps along the way. There's still (arguably) quite a bit to adapt properly...
Sign In or Register to comment.