› ›

Would you rather EON adapt the continuation novels OR continue to develop their own adventures?

1…3435373940…96

Comments

  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,074
    Tomorrow Never Dies actually ended up going up in my rankings after this last viewing, whereas TWINE was knocked down a few spots.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited September 2023 Posts: 2,932
    So long as CR is untouched in any way by a fifth Brosnan movie, yeah, give Pierce a 5th so he doesn't have to end on DAD. But if a 5th Brozza would've meant no CR as we know it? Can't live in that world, dude, so in that case lose NTTD and stop Dan at four.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Venutius wrote: »
    A fifth Pierce would literally mean no CR as we know it. Can't live in that world, dude. So Dan stops at four.

    Yep.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Kicking: Impossible
    Posts: 6,735
    CrabKey wrote: »
    I'm not sure why, PB is the least memorable Bond for me. And I like him as an actor. Did A Dud was enough for me. I still can't get over that invisible car. How much better would that film have been without it? Though not a big fan of Dan's last film, I'll take the no longer visible Bond over the invisible car.

    Who is "PB"? I don't remember that guy.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 15,818
    5th Brosnan without question.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    A 5th Brosnan film. He deserved a better film to end his tenure than DAD. Even though I find it a whole lot of fun.
    So long as we still get CR with Craig still.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,486
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    Tomorrow Never Dies actually ended up going up in my rankings after this last viewing, whereas TWINE was knocked down a few spots.

    I keep waiting for this to happen to me. Past one viewing I had really early one morning a few years ago, I just can't get into it. I love Pryce's Carver and a few flashes of action are solid but that's usually it for me.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,391
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    Tomorrow Never Dies actually ended up going up in my rankings after this last viewing, whereas TWINE was knocked down a few spots.

    I keep waiting for this to happen to me. Past one viewing I had really early one morning a few years ago, I just can't get into it. I love Pryce's Carver and a few flashes of action are solid but that's usually it for me.

    It's the film that's average for me, nothing groundbreaking in it, but nothing bad in it either.
    Nothing outstanding, but nothing that cringes too, just in the middle.

    The execution of the film (or the direction), felt like it's playing safe for the audiences, so they've avoided to make some bad steps, so as a result, it turned out an average Bond film at best.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,486
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    Tomorrow Never Dies actually ended up going up in my rankings after this last viewing, whereas TWINE was knocked down a few spots.

    I keep waiting for this to happen to me. Past one viewing I had really early one morning a few years ago, I just can't get into it. I love Pryce's Carver and a few flashes of action are solid but that's usually it for me.

    It's the film that's average for me, nothing groundbreaking in it, but nothing bad in it either.
    Nothing outstanding, but nothing that cringes too, just in the middle.

    The execution of the film (or the direction), felt like it's playing safe for the audiences, so they've avoided to make some bad steps, so as a result, it turned out an average Bond film at best.

    Definitely has that weaker and almost made-for-TV style to it, especially during the fights. It always stands out to me as a negative.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,973
    The fights are a bit weak, and have a weird running theme of Bond beating up older guys who are out of shape for some reason(!), but I really like TND. It's kind of bog-standard Bond, but it's good fun, is actually fairly stylish, and has two of the series' best action set pieces for my money.
    It does play safe for the audience (it's funny to watch the series dipping its toe into the more dramatic waters with the brief Paris stuff), but then we see on here every day how fans don't react well when they pushed into the not-safe waters later down the line! :)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,486
    Yeah most of the goons he's up against are old and the fights are further lessened by those horrible TV movie sound effects.

    I'm fine with playing it safe, I just wish it didn't all feel almost amateurish and weak as a result.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,882
    What are the two action set pieces out of curiosity @mtm ?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,978
    For those who weren't around in 1997 there was a little movie called Titanic running in theatres at the same time as TND. TND actually held it's own in Box Office and performed well given that the script was being written as the film was being shot. It plays a bit like a video game but that is likely a function of the script writing process more so than any intention from the producers or director.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,942
    Not seeing many flaws with TND. And Bond taking on the henchmen who were unfit and/or older was likely done to contrast against the main henchman who was much younger and fitter than Bond.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,395
    A 5th Brosnan film in 2004, as long as CR is all the same in 2006. In a perfect world...
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,391
    ShakenNotStirred wrote: »
    A 5th Brosnan film in 2004, as long as CR is all the same in 2006. In a perfect world...

    2007, more appropriately.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited September 2023 Posts: 4,978
    Lets keep things in the fantasy world for a bit. There are two films where it is said that the Bond actor may not have been the best at fulfilling the role.

    DAF is a campy and fun romp starring Sean Connery who was previously known as a serious edged Bond. To some Connery can't pull it off properly and the script doesn't play to his strengths. Would Roger bring more life and highlight the madness that is DAF? Moore against Charles Gray's Blofeld.

    TMTWGG is a mismash of hard edged Bond. Slapping around women, storing them in closets. Some have said that Moore was not suited for the situations he found himself in and that the script doesn't play to his strengths. Would Sean facing off against Christopher Lee be a better film!

    So lets try this:

    Would you rather a Roger Moore DAF OR a Sean Connery TMWTGG

    Pause your logic, based on the film we got can you see the new actor doing a better job with the script? Which one would become a better film with a different actor? Only consider changing the actor playing Bond. Assume same script, same cast and such.

    Tell us what would you rather Roger in DAF or Sean in TMWTGG?
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 989
    I'd rather have Roger in Diamonds Are Forever.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,507
    I would probably like to see Sean Connery as Bond in TMWTGG. Connery vs Lee? Yes, yes I'd love to see that actually (and that's not to take anything away from Moore, but the script, as is, feels like they were trying a little more Connery anyways, so,.....)....

    But, at the same time, I'd still want Connery in DAF(although one could argue this was the template for Moore. I just Love watching Connery waltz through scene after scene with effortless humour and his natural charisma)....
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,838
    I'd have to go for Connery in TMWTGG, by default. DAF could only be sold by Sean Connery, I genuinely think any other actor would have made it a flop. While TMWTGG was heavily flawed and Moore was one of its best elements, maybe, just maybe Connery's presence could have kept the film as "good". But as much as I dislike DAF, it needed Connery to succeed and the franchise to survive.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    Connery in TMWTGG. Moore is as said above definitely a Connery pastiche there, and it's one of the weakest Bond performances in the series IMO.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,270
    I feel like Moore was better in TMWTGG than Connery was in DAF, and that Moore's sillier Bond would have felt more at home with what DAF was going for. Moore did a better job with edgy stuff than Connery did with campy stuff. But still, for this particular prompt, I think I'd rather see Connery in TMWTGG, just because I find the story and movie a lot more interesting than DAF.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,973
    I don't know if either are particularly edifying prospects as neither are highlights of the series if you ask me, but although I'd always be happy to see more Roger films, Peter's point about them seemingly trying to make Roger into Sean in GG is a good one and perhaps he would fit better in that. Roger's great in it as always, but perhaps it would suit Sean better, so I'll go with that option.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,697
    I somehow don't think Roger would have fit into DAF. It's campy enough as it is, and pink-tied Connery has his part of it. The film is a mess either way, and its only saving grace is the dialogue, which is among the funniest of them all, rivalled only by MR's Hugo Drax lines.

    On the other hand, provided Sean had been rejuvenated a bit instead of being his sort of chubby self from DAF, I think he would have made a formidable foe to Christopher Lee. It's only that Sheriff J.W. Pepper wouldn't have recognized him as the English agent from England. Still, I vote for the latter.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,395
    I could see Connery in TMWTGG for sure, it basically follows in tone from DAF. The JW bits wouldn't make sense though, you are right.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,270
    I forget which member it was, but I remember reading someone’s suggestion here that a Daniel Craig-led TMWTGG, or remake or something similar, would have been really cool, and I fully agree. I best picture his Bond with this kind of story, just altered to be a bit less campy.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited September 2023 Posts: 565
    It would only take, "You're that English-" for Connery to grab Pepper by the hair and slam his head on the dashboard.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 1,520
    DAF has always seemed to me a Moore film. But TMWTGG with Connery? Certainly not as written.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,978
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    It would only take, "You're that English-" for Connery to grab Pepper by the hair and slam his head on the dashboard.

    Comment of the day, if not the week! LOL! Maybe Pepper would have stayed where he belonged and left in LALD. I don't see how a racist southern would think it was a good idea to travel to Thailand for a vacation. But I guess that is the craziness of the series during these years.

    Funny @CrabKey I can see Connery and Lee having a great time during the dinner scene of the movie. The back and forth and the jibes and barbs which were great with Moore would take on more gravitas than they did in the film. IMHO
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2023 Posts: 14,973
    Although oddly, the "When I kill, its on the specific orders of my government. And those I kill are themselves killers." actually seems more dramatic to me than most of the stuff Connery ever got to say: he was rarely that serious, or even really spoke about his attitude to his work that openly. Bond has rather lost his patience with FS at that point and drops any pretence. It feels to me like it would sit oddly in Connery's mouth compared to his other films as Bond as that was never really his style, although I do think he'd have no trouble with it.

    I do think, counter intuitively, that Roger had the more dramatic stuff to work with as Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.