SKYFALL: Is this the best Bond film?

1222325272847

Comments

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,119
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?


    Agreed on Dalton.... Flemings Bond. However, OHMSS was amazing because of Peter Hunt, the score, the script, the overall cast etc. Lazenby was ok....just ok.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,207
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.

    There's something really effeminate about young Brosnan. He looks like a pre op here.

    Fortunately he grew into his looks as he got older.

    I have never understood how/why Brosnan limped away from Bond and didn't find a way out of that contract. Where there's a will, there's a way, especually when it comes to contracts of this sort. You don't think MGM/EON had a legal team that could have managed a buy out or a way out of it? It wasn't like Remington Steele was a hit show. It was pretty much done. You simply do not give up playing James Bond so you can do the final season of a TV drama. You don't.

    For some reason, I think there's revisionist history going on with Bros. He didn't really want it at the time.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,228
    Birdleson wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Have anyone here seen Remington Steele? Is it worth watching? I am kinda curious what it was the general audience saw in Brosnan which made them so convinced he was the "perfect cast for Bond"?

    I don't see it myself to be honest...

    I tried it a couple of times when it first aired and really didn't like it. It was silly. I disliked Pierce particularly. Hence I was very down when he got the role of Bond, and overjoyed when it went to Dalton instead. I was very surprised that Brosnan was actually pretty strong GE.

    If I saw Remington Steele in 1985 and met others who expressed the opinion that Brosnan should be Bond, I would have said they were utterly insane. Brosnan in that show IMO made a pretty good approximation of Cary Grant in screwball comedy mode, but there’s nothing particularly Bondian about him in that show AT ALL. In fact I’m very glad he resisted reprising that act as Bond. It’s a totally different beast, and in retrospect it’s a very atypical performance of Brosnan and I fully understand why he became resentful of that show beyond the fact he lost the Bond role because of it.

    When you see the projects he took after that show was canceled, it’s obvious how much he wanted to distance himself from that image and show he could play a more hard boiled character when given the opportunity. I saw THE FOURTH PROTOCOL awhile back, his first post-RS role where he plays a cold Russian assassin. That at least convinces me that if he actually had gotten the Bond role, he probably wouldn’t have done anything too different from what Dalton did because he seemed all game for playing darker colder take on Bond that John Glen wanted to portray in TLD. Maybe LTK would have still happened under Brosnan. But as things turned out, there was no chance GE would continue what Dalton did so he was pretty much forced to do an approximation of Connery and Moore because that’s what audiences would expect and it wasn’t a good time to take risks for EON.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,228
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.

    There's something really effeminate about young Brosnan. He looks like a pre op here.

    Fortunately he grew into his looks as he got older.

    I have never understood how/why Brosnan limped away from Bond and didn't find a way out of that contract. Where there's a will, there's a way, especually when it comes to contracts of this sort. You don't think MGM/EON had a legal team that could have managed a buy out or a way out of it? It wasn't like Remington Steele was a hit show. It was pretty much done. You simply do not give up playing James Bond so you can do the final season of a TV drama. You don't.

    For some reason, I think there's revisionist history going on with Bros. He didn't really want it at the time.

    The narrative is that the ratings spiked after rumors of Brosnan getting Bond happened, which is why NBC decided not to cancel because it suddenly had a resurgence. NBC seemed to be willing to accommodate for EON, but I think ultimately Cubby didn’t want Brosnan to have a TV show at the same time as Bond. Remember, this is the same producer that went mad over The Man From UNCLE because it was originally titled “Ian Fleming’s Solo” and his argument was that the TV show was feeding off of Bond merely because it featured a character named Solo, which GF had a character named as such.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 533
    Is "SKYFALL" the best Bond movie? Hmmm . . . NO. In fact, it's one of my least favorite Bond films in the franchise. I thought it was marred by too much sloppy writing and sexism. I think it's one of the most overrated Bond films I have ever seen.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 2,136
    Birdleson wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Have anyone here seen Remington Steele? Is it worth watching? I am kinda curious what it was the general audience saw in Brosnan which made them so convinced he was the "perfect cast for Bond"?

    I don't see it myself to be honest...

    I tried it a couple of times when it first aired and really didn't like it. It was silly. I disliked Pierce particularly. Hence I was very down when he got the role of Bond, and overjoyed when it went to Dalton instead. I was very surprised that Brosnan was actually pretty strong GE.

    If I saw Remington Steele in 1985 and met others who expressed the opinion that Brosnan should be Bond, I would have said they were utterly insane. Brosnan in that show IMO made a pretty good approximation of Cary Grant in screwball comedy mode, but there’s nothing particularly Bondian about him in that show AT ALL. In fact I’m very glad he resisted reprising that act as Bond. It’s a totally different beast, and in retrospect it’s a very atypical performance of Brosnan and I fully understand why he became resentful of that show beyond the fact he lost the Bond role because of it.

    When you see the projects he took after that show was canceled, it’s obvious how much he wanted to distance himself from that image and show he could play a more hard boiled character when given the opportunity. I saw THE FOURTH PROTOCOL awhile back, his first post-RS role where he plays a cold Russian assassin. That at least convinces me that if he actually had gotten the Bond role, he probably wouldn’t have done anything too different from what Dalton did because he seemed all game for playing darker colder take on Bond that John Glen wanted to portray in TLD. Maybe LTK would have still happened under Brosnan. But as things turned out, there was no chance GE would continue what Dalton did so he was pretty much forced to do an approximation of Connery and Moore because that’s what audiences would expect and it wasn’t a good time to take risks for EON.

    The first time I saw Brozza was in The Long Good Friday (best film of all time), and he looked great in that. When rumours floated about him being the next Bond, one glimpse of him as the ice cold killer pointing his gun at Bob Hoskins, I was convinced he would make a great Bond.

    I never saw Remington Steele so cannot comment on his performance there, but I seriously doubt Brosnan would have been as vocal as Dalton was about wanting to return to the Fleming novels, had he got the gig back in 1987. He probably would have ended up giving us more of the same that we eventually got from him - a super hero in a suit, modelled on a combo of Connery and Moore. I never got the impression he was a huge fan of the novels, like Dalton was.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,228
    Brosnan probably wouldn’t have been as vocal, but I have confidence John Glen would have pushed him into that direction in 1986. There’s moments in FYEO, OP, and AVTAK where you can see that Glen wanted to get a tougher Bond out of Moore. With Dalton, he was able to push more for that hard edge in a way he couldn’t with Moore. I do believe Brosnan would have been up for that, especially if it meant shaking off that image people had of him in Remington Steele where he’s mostly a lovable goof.
  • Posts: 2,136
    Brosnan probably wouldn’t have been as vocal, but I have confidence John Glen would have pushed him into that direction in 1986. There’s moments in FYEO, OP, and AVTAK where you can see that Glen wanted to get a tougher Bond out of Moore. With Dalton, he was able to push more for that hard edge in a way he couldn’t with Moore. I do believe Brosnan would have been up for that, especially if it meant shaking off that image people had of him in Remington Steele where he’s mostly a lovable goof.

    Yes maybe. I sometimes forget Glen also was pushing for that direction too. And Brozza would have towed the line, because he desperately wanted the gig.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,228
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2020 Posts: 4,020
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Those Fansided results just show the difference between how more casual Bond fans think versus how we more hardcore fans think, i.e., CR at the top, OHMSS over GF, which isn’t even in our top three. OHMSS will never really gain in appreciation among the general public at large. I still remember my father telling me back when I first became a Bond fan almost 25 years ago that OHMSS wasn’t good and that Lazenby was terrible as Bond. When I finally saw it some 15 years later, I saw how completely wrong he was. I was talking with him just after Christmas last year when we went out for breakfast and we started talking about Bond and I mentioned how I loved OHMSS and Lazenby and he said basically the same thing, that it wasn’t good and Lazenby was a poor Bond, especially compared with Connery. His POV generally represents how most people think about OHMSS and Lazenby, if they even think of them at all. I bet most people have never bothered with the film. Their loss.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I've had the same discussion with my Dad many times, who believes that Connery is Bond and that Lazenby and Dalton are terrible in the role. Keep in mind that my Dad and a lot of the general public have never picked up a Fleming novel and therefore don't have an appreciation of what Lazenby and Dalton brought to the series. Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    Octopussy wrote: »
    Ironically, Craig is doing what Dalton did and getting praised for it like he's doing something new, which raises the argument that had Dalton (and Lazenby for that matter) featured in more films would they have been more welcomed by fans?

    I disagree about the comment of Craig doing what Dalton did. He really didn't. He plays with the same brooding cynicism Dalton did, but he also balances that with the cinematic Bond's machismo, which Dalton (intentionally) didn't emphasize in his performance.

    I say had Dalton did what Craig did, he probably would have had a more welcoming audience. His most cinematic Bondian performance could actually be found in the 1991 film THE ROCKETEER where he plays up the charm and seduction of a movie star. Perhaps had he done a third film and lightened up his characterization to something closer to that he would have been more warmly embraced by audiences. We'll never know.

    As for Lazenby, he pretty shot himself in the foot and rightfully never earned the love of audiences, so that's all on him.

    As soon as I saw @Octopussy post I wanted to respond but you did more succinctly than I could manage.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,703
    mtm wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Then again, what Craig does lack is elegance. Which Dalton and Lazenby had in spades. In these modern days I feel the refined nature of Bond's character hasn't been captured well, with the possible exception of QOS.

    I don't think so, no.
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO. I agree with your observations regarding Craig adding an almost Conneryesque animal-magnetism and self-assurance that is pure cinematic Bond. However, you often hear comments of how Craig grounded Bond and made him bleed, made him a relatable human, which to me isn't groundbreaking, whereas to commentators or those who haven't watched Lazenby's or Dalton's entries it appears so.

    It's not about getting credit for who did it first, rather who did it successfully. Craig managed to blend the cinematic and vulnerable components of Bond that seemed refreshingly new. Despite his vulnerability, he was still very much the man men wanted to be and women wanted to have in their sheets. Dalton didn't play up that.

    I agree that Craig has managed to do both, but I'll always prefer Dalton's portrayal of Bond over DC, personally.
    mtm wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Fleming's Bond never had ego and sometimes lack self-confidence, IMO.

    Thing is, the cinematic Bond has been around for much longer than the book Bond was, and more people have watched a Bond film than read a Bond book, so ignoring the expectations that your audience have from a Bond film is a strange choice I think. You can vary it but there are certain beats that Bond always hits, and the swagger is one of them. Even in something like FRWL, where at times he's wounded and cornered and vulnerable, he's still convinced that he's an awesome guy: you can just see it in his eyes.

    You've misunderstood me. I am completely aware that a general audience prefers a Bond that evokes more of the quintessential cinematic Bond characteristics which is apart of the reason that Dalton's Bond wasn't widely accepted such as the likes of Connery and Moore. I was merely stating that Fleming's Bond to me never struck me as having those personality traits. They were clearly incorporated into the character for the cinema to make him more appealing to mass audience.

    They were, yeah. But I'm not sure of the relevance of that to this discussion: we're talking about what Dalton and Craig's versions share and which did it successfully.

    I don't see Fleming's version of Bond as inherently superior just because it's written down. Bond is a massive global icon because of the films, and I think there are plenty of places where you could argue that the films improved on the books. Look at the plot to Goldfinger for example.
    I rather love that No Time To Die pays tribute to and takes its name, not from a Fleming creation, but from a Cubby Broccoli one. Because at this point in history I'd argue that Broccoli is of equal importance to Fleming in terms of being one the father figures of Bond in terms of being a global icon.

    Yes I'd go along with that, even though I'm a massive Fleming fan first and foremost. Dalton brought out the Fleming Bond traits far more than any other actor, but as other have already said on here, this wasn't as appealing to audiences as the swagger and macho charisma of the cinematic Bond that Connery had in spades, and Craig managed to emulate too.

    The books are a fantastic read yeah, and I wouldn't say that Craig is playing the same guy as in those pages (especially not in Casino) but I think I'd actually hazard a suggestion that he's more interesting than the book Bond. I don't find that Bond in the books has all that much to him really. Dalton is closer, sure, but he's still not the same character for my money, so I'll take the one who's great to watch and more interesting any day of the week.
    Although Daylights is still one of, if not my most, favourite Bonds, so I don't hate him or anything! :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,703
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Sorry, I had responded to the previous page and now realize that most of my points below were already made by others. Still, having my say.

    No, Dalton and Lazenby just don't have that charisma that the other four possess. That is why neither of them had any success as a leading man outside of the franchise, not even in television. More films may have helped, but mass audiences loved the other four guys immediately. It was just never going to happen with those two; the fan community sees their strengths, but the average filmgoer wants a Bond that lights ups the screen. It's been said on here for years that Dalton did what Craig did first, but really he didn't. Yes, more serious, but he never gave us that blast of angry wit, that sexual prowess; it just wasn't there, it wasn't within his capabilities and the audiences want that in a Bond.

    Yes exactly.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,020
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Sorry, I had responded to the previous page and now realize that most of my points below were already made by others. Still, having my say.

    No, Dalton and Lazenby just don't have that charisma that the other four possess. That is why neither of them had any success as a leading man outside of the franchise, not even in television. More films may have helped, but mass audiences loved the other four guys immediately. It was just never going to happen with those two; the fan community sees their strengths, but the average filmgoer wants a Bond that lights ups the screen. It's been said on here for years that Dalton did what Craig did first, but really he didn't. Yes, more serious, but he never gave us that blast of angry wit, that sexual prowess; it just wasn't there, it wasn't within his capabilities and the audiences want that in a Bond.

    Yes exactly.

    Agreed, again bang on.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,703
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    I don't know really, it's not a huge leap from his killing of Stromberg to that I think. I could see him there.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,391
    TripAces wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    And yet, ironically, why Dalton failed was because the public wanted Brosnan back then.



    I say this as someone who vastly prefers Dalton.

    There's something really effeminate about young Brosnan. He looks like a pre op here.

    Fortunately he grew into his looks as he got older.

    I have never understood how/why Brosnan limped away from Bond and didn't find a way out of that contract. Where there's a will, there's a way, especually when it comes to contracts of this sort. You don't think MGM/EON had a legal team that could have managed a buy out or a way out of it? It wasn't like Remington Steele was a hit show. It was pretty much done. You simply do not give up playing James Bond so you can do the final season of a TV drama. You don't.

    For some reason, I think there's revisionist history going on with Bros. He didn't really want it at the time.

    The narrative is that the ratings spiked after rumors of Brosnan getting Bond happened, which is why NBC decided not to cancel because it suddenly had a resurgence. NBC seemed to be willing to accommodate for EON, but I think ultimately Cubby didn’t want Brosnan to have a TV show at the same time as Bond. Remember, this is the same producer that went mad over The Man From UNCLE because it was originally titled “Ian Fleming’s Solo” and his argument was that the TV show was feeding off of Bond merely because it featured a character named Solo, which GF had a character named as such.

    Yes, this is what happened.

    Back in the '80s there was a much greater divide between film and TV (a kind of snobbery against TV as an inferior medium), so you can see why Cubby felt this way.
  • Posts: 1,562
    I was actually one of the people who first started watching Remington Steele when it came on and took a liking to Brosnan. The Steele character was different and the show a little stood out somewhat from most U.S. shows back then. Believe me, most were terrible and predictable. One of the big trends was shows based on Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    Didn't really keep up Steele as it wore on with school and sports and things, but recall a few people talking up Brosnan as a Moore replacement. The Steele character does admittedly give a Simon Templar/Lord Brett Sinclair vibe. The next year when the Battle of the Bonds was going on, Us Magazine did its poll of who should be the next Bond with names like Tom Selleck in there alongside several English actors and even Lazenby thrown in. Brosnan won overwhelmingly.

    The Steele series is kind of fun. But they were very much of their time, far from series we know today with ongoing storylines. I know they had an arch enemy in some later seasons and Steele's dad shows up and such. They tried to jazz up the last season when it was renewed at the last minute by going on location and making it more exotic.

    There were 5 seasons and I have the first and fourth/fifth on DVD but have never watched them. Maybe with all this downtime I should.
  • edited April 2020 Posts: 2,136
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Location: Hm, I wish I could write Italy or San Marino here
    Posts: 5,514
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    Very much so. 100% agreed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 7,703
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,228
    Pretty sure he means he just wants straight up adaptations of leftover Fleming material.
  • Posts: 533
    Not to mention the fact that Skyfall has managed to appeal to people who previously had no interest in Bond and many of whom are now fans of the series. Bond fans shouldn´t complain about that, they should be thankful.


    I should be "thankful"? For what? I detest "Skyfall". I don't care if every other human being on this earth loved it. I loathed it. And I will complain about it for as long as I watch James Bond movies.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    +1
  • Posts: 2,136
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?
  • Posts: 2,136
    Pretty sure he means he just wants straight up adaptations of leftover Fleming material.

    Thanks MP. I'm fairly sure mtm knew that too, in his heart of hearts... ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2020 Posts: 7,703
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party, but I’ll watch the one with machine guns in the headlights of an Aston Martin, thanks!
    :D
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,228
    As much as I would like to see some of the Fleming leftovers adapted, I'm not against the filmmakers deciding to go for an original story so long as it works for the films. SKYFALL does that for me.
  • Posts: 6,843
    Although you could still potentially stitch together elements from the novels into overall stories, the potential for creating many great films using that technique is in truth quite limited. I think coming up with new, Flemingesque stories is the best approach. However they could be significantly better than some of what has been presented recently, and I certainly think it´s time to let someone else than P&W do it...

    We might never find a new Maibaum, but there has to be someone more talented and accomplished than those two out there...
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 686
    I’ve only read five Fleming books so far, but I know I would like to see Gala Brand and Blofeld’s garden of death from YOLT used in some fashion in the film series.
  • Posts: 2,136
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Pretty much. It’s very telling that John Glen would refer to LTK as his personal favorite, because that’s when he was able to truly push for that hard edge that wasn’t possible with the already established Roger Moore in the role. He could only get as far as having Moore kill Loque in FYEO, or that brutal bit with him shooting a young soviet soldier right in the forehead. With a new actor, whether Dalton or Brosnan, there was at least some freedom in being able to shape a new Bond. I certainly can’t imagine Moore’s Bond in the interrogation scene with Pushkin.

    1987 to 1989 - *sigh*

    Never realised it at the time, but that was a glorious period to be a Fleming Bond fan. You had a whole team either wanting to go back to the books, or were capable of cleverly adapting the books - from Glen the director, to Cubby the producer, to Maibaum the scriptwriter who expertly knew how to do this, to the actor himself playing the lead, Dalton.

    The entire creative team were driven by a desire to give Bond a harder edge, while also wanting to return to the Fleming books (and not crappy P&W Fleming retcon, or Fleming re-imagined).

    Happy days. If only we could go back to that time now. I'd argue that outside of the early 60's, that was the next best era.

    You wish you had a team currently making the films who want to give Bond a hard edge...? Erm...?

    Did you purposely ignore the second part of my sentence you quoted...? Erm...?

    Well that made less sense: they’ve done the Fleming books. I don’t hugely want Thunderball for a third time! :D
    If it’s the leftovers... you can watch your dream movie of Bond being told about Phillip and Rhoda having a bad relationship at a dinner party
    :D

    Now even I agree that would be dull. ;)

    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.
  • Posts: 5,303
    Give me properly adapted DAF, MR, TSWLM, YOLT and TMWTGG over pretty much anything `original' done by P&W any day of the week.

    Yes, please! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.