Where does Bond go after Craig?

1538539541543544571

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    I will pick DN over DAF and AVTAK any day. It's still one of the best in the series for me. The film moves fast, keeps things simple, and already establishes many of the iconic elements of the Bond films. It's also a sexy, exotic thriller with one of the best villain performances ever, at least in my opinion.
  • Posts: 886
    DN has more sex than many modern movies. I don't buy that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    DN has more sex than many modern movies. I don't buy that.

    I agree that DN has more sex than many modern films. What exactly don't you buy, @DEKE_RIVERS?

    DN offers three types of 'sexy' for Bond. 1) The recreational squeeze; 2) The enemy distraction; 3) The adventurous companion. All three were handled well, I think. My only regret is that we don't find out what happened to Honey between DN and FRWL. Then again, explaining former romances in every next film would've complicated things tremendously for the series.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,062
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.

    Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.


    Thanks, Deke.

    My question is, does this show a generation divide?

    Someone stated that the posts made criticizing Dr No and TB revealed a generational divide. I'm not exactly sure what that means.

    So taking my own top ten, I was asking, as a person who was born and who grew up during the Moore (and Dalton era), does this show a generational divide? And if so, how?

    Hi Peter, That was me. My comment was actually based on some people preferring AVTAK and DAF over DN. From a filmmaker's perspective it seemed to me that a "generational divide" could explain that. Of course I could be wrong. How would you rate DN against AVTAK in their story arcs, pacing and production values?

    @delfloria ,for me, DN is a tight, well-made, small budget film that is far better than DAF and AVTAK.

    But I’m not sure if some liking DAF and AVTAK over DN is a generational thing, though— IMO.

    I dunno, maybe some liked the sleazy, lounge lizardy’ness of DAF, or the GF callbacks in AVTAK? I think it's personal tastes rather than generational, if I was to guess.

    And some of the criticisms attached to DN, like it feels like a 50s film, I get. I think that too. Norman’s melodramatic score really lends itself more to a film from the previous decade. But I also love DN for this tone as well.

    If any of that makes sense?…..

    Oh, I will easily choose DN over DAF or AVTAK any day, no contest.

    I remember seeing AVTAK in the theater and thinking, "This is terrible and geriatric." And it is, but damn if I don't appreciate Walken and Jones, and Moore and Macnee, and even the score (which felt kind of poky at the time) a lot more now.

    DAF is of course problematic with Wint and Kidd, and the degeneration of Tiffany into a bimbo. But it does have a sleazy charm, is funny, and the entire cast seems to be in on the joke. In a way, DAF is CR '67 done right.

    DAD is indefensible, though. That film should never have existed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 18 Posts: 15,355
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.

    Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.


    Thanks, Deke.

    My question is, does this show a generation divide?

    Someone stated that the posts made criticizing Dr No and TB revealed a generational divide. I'm not exactly sure what that means.

    So taking my own top ten, I was asking, as a person who was born and who grew up during the Moore (and Dalton era), does this show a generational divide? And if so, how?

    Hi Peter, That was me. My comment was actually based on some people preferring AVTAK and DAF over DN. From a filmmaker's perspective it seemed to me that a "generational divide" could explain that. Of course I could be wrong. How would you rate DN against AVTAK in their story arcs, pacing and production values?

    @delfloria ,for me, DN is a tight, well-made, small budget film that is far better than DAF and AVTAK.

    But I’m not sure if some liking DAF and AVTAK over DN is a generational thing, though— IMO.

    I dunno, maybe some liked the sleazy, lounge lizardy’ness of DAF, or the GF callbacks in AVTAK? I think it's personal tastes rather than generational, if I was to guess.

    And some of the criticisms attached to DN, like it feels like a 50s film, I get. I think that too. Norman’s melodramatic score really lends itself more to a film from the previous decade. But I also love DN for this tone as well.

    If any of that makes sense?…..

    Oh, I will easily choose DN over DAF or AVTAK any day, no contest.

    I remember seeing AVTAK in the theater and thinking, "This is terrible and geriatric." And it is, but damn if I don't appreciate Walken and Jones, and Moore and Macnee, and even the score (which felt kind of poky at the time) a lot more now.

    DAF is of course problematic with Wint and Kidd, and the degeneration of Tiffany into a bimbo. But it does have a sleazy charm, is funny, and the entire cast seems to be in on the joke. In a way, DAF is CR '67 done right.

    I don't really like DAF; it's got some great lines, and Sean is back on the money, but it's not one I like hugely. But I must admit, although I can see AVTAK has its flaws, I just kind of love it. It's sort of my comfort Bond. So I'm afraid I would take it over DN, even though I can see DN has more merit and deserves its place in the pantheon of movie history more. 'View' just gives me more joy. I guess it comes down to the difference between 'best' and 'favourite'.
    Are Wint and Kidd problematic? I'm not sure the film is saying gay people are evil per se. Agreed on Tiffany seeming to get less and less intelligent as the film goes on.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,062
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.

    Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.


    Thanks, Deke.

    My question is, does this show a generation divide?

    Someone stated that the posts made criticizing Dr No and TB revealed a generational divide. I'm not exactly sure what that means.

    So taking my own top ten, I was asking, as a person who was born and who grew up during the Moore (and Dalton era), does this show a generational divide? And if so, how?

    Hi Peter, That was me. My comment was actually based on some people preferring AVTAK and DAF over DN. From a filmmaker's perspective it seemed to me that a "generational divide" could explain that. Of course I could be wrong. How would you rate DN against AVTAK in their story arcs, pacing and production values?

    @delfloria ,for me, DN is a tight, well-made, small budget film that is far better than DAF and AVTAK.

    But I’m not sure if some liking DAF and AVTAK over DN is a generational thing, though— IMO.

    I dunno, maybe some liked the sleazy, lounge lizardy’ness of DAF, or the GF callbacks in AVTAK? I think it's personal tastes rather than generational, if I was to guess.

    And some of the criticisms attached to DN, like it feels like a 50s film, I get. I think that too. Norman’s melodramatic score really lends itself more to a film from the previous decade. But I also love DN for this tone as well.

    If any of that makes sense?…..

    Oh, I will easily choose DN over DAF or AVTAK any day, no contest.

    I remember seeing AVTAK in the theater and thinking, "This is terrible and geriatric." And it is, but damn if I don't appreciate Walken and Jones, and Moore and Macnee, and even the score (which felt kind of poky at the time) a lot more now.

    DAF is of course problematic with Wint and Kidd, and the degeneration of Tiffany into a bimbo. But it does have a sleazy charm, is funny, and the entire cast seems to be in on the joke. In a way, DAF is CR '67 done right.

    I don't really like DAF; it's got some great lines, and Sean is back on the money, but it's not one I like hugely. But I must admit, although I can see AVTAK has its flaws, I just kind of love it. It's sort of my comfort Bond. So I'm afraid I would take it over DN, even though I can see DN has more merit and deserves its place in the pantheon of movie history more. 'View' just gives me more joy. I guess it comes down to the difference between 'best' and 'favourite'.

    Agreed about AVTAK. A great example of its "comfort Bond" nature for me is when Bond jumps from the bridge onto the wedding cake.

    Terrible: obvious stuntman, Moore looking particularly old, gawking bride extra. And yet...Barry's jazzy snippet of the title song and Jones' cackle. I. Love. It.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 18 Posts: 15,355
    I enjoy the guy dancing with the balloon.

    ME18BHZ7_o.gif
  • Posts: 1,750
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    These post are also a reminder of the generational divides within
    Bond fandom.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    But now GE looks like an old Roger Moore movie, so I don't know what the next generation of fans will think.

    I don't understand what this means? I don't know how comments made show a generational divide? Just because there is some criticism of the earlier films?

    When I look at my top ten, four slots go to Connery, one to Lazenby, one to Dalton, and four to Craig.

    Do my choices show this so-called "generational divide"?. If so, how?

    Maybe because you like Craig.

    In my top ten, fifty percent goes to the films of the 60s.
    Forty percent goes to Craig.
    One to a film from the 80s.

    Try answering that again, Deke. Yes, I like Craig.

    But it's obvious that I admire the films from the 60s, and one from the 80s.

    I was asking if this showed a generational divide, especially considering I was born and grew up in the Moore era.

    Your answer was, as usual, puzzling.

    Your tastes seem very consistent. Craig=Connery+Dalton+Lazenby.


    Thanks, Deke.

    My question is, does this show a generation divide?

    Someone stated that the posts made criticizing Dr No and TB revealed a generational divide. I'm not exactly sure what that means.

    So taking my own top ten, I was asking, as a person who was born and who grew up during the Moore (and Dalton era), does this show a generational divide? And if so, how?

    Hi Peter, That was me. My comment was actually based on some people preferring AVTAK and DAF over DN. From a filmmaker's perspective it seemed to me that a "generational divide" could explain that. Of course I could be wrong. How would you rate DN against AVTAK in their story arcs, pacing and production values?

    @delfloria ,for me, DN is a tight, well-made, small budget film that is far better than DAF and AVTAK.

    But I’m not sure if some liking DAF and AVTAK over DN is a generational thing, though— IMO.

    I dunno, maybe some liked the sleazy, lounge lizardy’ness of DAF, or the GF callbacks in AVTAK? I think it's personal tastes rather than generational, if I was to guess.

    And some of the criticisms attached to DN, like it feels like a 50s film, I get. I think that too. Norman’s melodramatic score really lends itself more to a film from the previous decade. But I also love DN for this tone as well.

    If any of that makes sense?…..

    Oh, I will easily choose DN over DAF or AVTAK any day, no contest.

    I remember seeing AVTAK in the theater and thinking, "This is terrible and geriatric." And it is, but damn if I don't appreciate Walken and Jones, and Moore and Macnee, and even the score (which felt kind of poky at the time) a lot more now.

    DAF is of course problematic with Wint and Kidd, and the degeneration of Tiffany into a bimbo. But it does have a sleazy charm, is funny, and the entire cast seems to be in on the joke. In a way, DAF is CR '67 done right.

    I don't really like DAF; it's got some great lines, and Sean is back on the money, but it's not one I like hugely. But I must admit, although I can see AVTAK has its flaws, I just kind of love it. It's sort of my comfort Bond. So I'm afraid I would take it over DN, even though I can see DN has more merit and deserves its place in the pantheon of movie history more. 'View' just gives me more joy. I guess it comes down to the difference between 'best' and 'favourite'.
    Are Wint and Kidd problematic? I'm not sure the film is saying gay people are evil per se. Agreed on Tiffany seeming to get less and less intelligent as the film goes on.

    Best and Favorite don't even exist in the same universe. There is no criteria for what makes a film "favorite comfort food". That is solely up to personal preference based on a lifetime of experiences. No one can convince me that Disney's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is not worthy of being my favorite film of all time.



  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,062
    mtm wrote: »
    I enjoy the guy dancing with the balloon.

    ME18BHZ7_o.gif

    LOL. I just realized that Moore bookended his run by destroying wedding cakes.

    https://cultbox.co.uk/features/lists/times-james-bond-totally-ruined-someones-wedding
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 18 Posts: 15,355
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I enjoy the guy dancing with the balloon.

    ME18BHZ7_o.gif

    LOL. I just realized that Moore bookended his run by destroying wedding cakes.

    https://cultbox.co.uk/features/lists/times-james-bond-totally-ruined-someones-wedding

    Ha! That's amazing, can't believe I never spotted that :D And both in boats too!
  • Posts: 3,211
    AVTAK was actually the first Bond film I ever watched so I have a soft spot for it. I'm sure there are days when if I had to pick a Bond film I'd take it over DN, but it really depends on my mood. Personally I rate DN higher/think it's the better film. DAF is... well, a very unique Bond movie to say the least! It definitely has its moments though.

    Anyway, this isn't a generational thing as such, but I have noticed with Bond (at least outside of these forums) that until recently there was a sort of unwritten rule that Connery was the best Bond, and the others were merely effective imitators (perhaps with the exception of Craig). To be honest I probably thought that myself on some level when I was younger.

    I think what changed this for me was rewatching the films over a few year period. Not to say I think any less of Connery - FRWL is my favourite Bond film after all, and Connery's performance is a key factor in that - but I do remember rewatching some of the Moore films a few years ago and really getting a lot out of them - TSWLM and OP in particular. There's just something about the way Moore plays the character in those films that feels so human, albeit with his idiosyncratic tongue in cheek charisma that's very much James Bond for me. By contrast I felt that Connery in TB and YOLT looked bored and wasn't quite as captivating, and I've never rated his performances in DAF and NSNA all that highly either. Honestly, performances such as Dalton's in LTK or Brosnan's in GE were a lot more magnetic to me, much more what I see as James Bond. I'm also of an age where all the Bond films I've seen in the cinema have been the Craig instalments. A big part of Bond nostalgia for me is actually rewatching CR and SF and remembering when they first came out, remembering how captivated I was with Craig's Bond performances in those films. While I watched Connery's films prior, I can't deny that both those films and Craig's Bond made just as much an impact on me.

    It's like I always say, there's no single definitive cinematic Bond. And thank God for that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 18 Posts: 15,355
    I love Roger in a sort ironic way sometimes, but also I think he genuinely was a very skilled screen presence: you just don't get that successful by being rubbish. I recently watched LALD and there's that whole long scene in Bond's room where he's attacked by the snake, Rosie comes in, he confronts her, comforts her etc. and I watched it imagining if George Lazenby still had the part.. and I think he genuinely wouldn't have got anywhere near. Because Roger is winking at the audience, he's in on the joke with you that Bond is trying to get his way with this girl, and yet he's still charming.. it's a pretty delicately judged bit of comedy and he's playing it so well... George would have just been a brick in that scene with no subtlety whatsoever, and it really made me appreciate Roger even more by comparison. He really quite bravely owns the role from the moment he first appears. Look at him walking out of JFK: he's James Bond right there, and yet a different 007 from the one people had been used to up until then.
    I do agree that he is surprisingly more human in the part than may first appear.

    In terms of best though I also agree that it's Connery and Craig up there at the top for me.
  • edited May 18 Posts: 3,211
    I think all Bonds have 'winked to the audience' to some extent. It's consciously what Connery did, and Moore just ran with that idea in his own way (he also seemingly understood this concept more than Lazenby). In some ways Bond was the perfect role for him - he's almost doing a pastiche of an 'English gentleman' at times, and yet Bond is a character who has that more brutish side to him (ie. he beats up/kills people, drinks, seduces women, drive fast cars etc). Again, it's simply a spin on what Connery did the role, that mixture of humorous irony and danger. And I agree his unshakeable confidence in the role in LALD really worked to his advantage (Lazenby never looked all that comfortable in the role).

    It's difficult for me to say which Bond is the best. I tend to joke I can never decide between Craig and Connery, so I default to Moore. Then again I think Dalton is fantastic as well, although Brosnan's first two Bond performances are ones I think amongst the best of the series... so I suppose I have to default to Lazenby, and let's be honest, Lazenby is very few people's favourite Bond and certainly not mine despite his great moments! Really I find it easier to think of my favourite individual performances from each film/actor.
  • Posts: 1,632
    As a one and done Bond, Lazenby seems unlikely to be a the top of the list as favorite Bond. But he's not at the bottom of my list. He rates as my fourth favorite Bond. How he would have been in the future or in a particular scene is pointless speculation since he never played the role again.
  • edited May 19 Posts: 2,116
    I can’t say who the “best” Bond is really because each and every one of them have had their pros/cons, plus each of them really succeed in their own way. Connery was of course the original Bond; the one who all the other actors inevitably live up to. His run of performances from 62-65 are indeed very memorable, but as mentioned above by @007HallY, it’s hard to look fondly on his performances in YOLT/DAF/NSNA. Lazenby gets unfairly maligned at times. I never thought his performance was bad as people make it out to be; he’s just not a strong actor. It kind of makes you wonder what EON’s mindset was picking this guy to replace Connery but it at least resulted in a unique and more vulnerable take on the character that we haven’t really seen since; and of course I love OHMSS as well which certainly helps Laz. Moore had one helluva debut in LALD, but his performance regressed a bit in TMWTGG due to the writing behind it. Thankfully his performances from 77-83 make up for that. But by AVTAK, I find myself thinking he hung around a bit too long in the role. I actually wished Dalton could’ve done that film because I think the tone/violence of the movie suits Timothy a bit more than it did Roger. Dalton himself has always impressed me with his take on the character; his Bond is the most strategic out of all the actors meaning that you really get a glimpse inside his thought process in a way I don’t really think you get with the others. Beyond that, Dalton’s Bond felt the most like the hardened professional; someone who took the job at hand seriously, but was never one to shy away from engaging in any pleasure that came his way. My only wish was that Dalton had worked with a different director for a third film. Brosnan was my first Bond, and the one who I always think of whenever I hear the words “James Bond.” I think what Pierce brings with him is an ability to convey the humor, sophistication, intensity, and inner turmoil of the character without taking it too far in any of those directions. His debut as Bond in GE is my personal favorite debut from any of the actors because I think he had it all from the beginning. He could be effortlessly charming, humorous, and dangerous without struggling to sell any of those elements. Pierce really perfected the “cinematic” Bond imho, which helps contextualize the shift to a more “grittier” Bond in the form of Daniel Craig. I think he has a wonderful start on Casino Royale, but the peak of Craig’s Bond for me is both QOS and Skyfall; where I really feel Craig manages to come into his own as the character. I have to admit that I found Craig came across as a bit “bored” at times during SP and I question some moments from him in NTTD as well; and much like Brosnan, I felt some of the material Craig had to work with wasn’t great. I also can’t say I agree with some of the more “bold” assertions that are made about his Bond, especially when it results in some negative comparisons with the other actors. But all that aside he did the role justice and he’s going to be a tough act to follow.

    It’s hard to pick a favorite honestly, but it comes down to either Brosnan or Moore for me. Brosnan was perfect in the role imo and I always wish he had been afforded one more film that was a bit more down to earth than DAD. But regardless he defined the role for an entire generation (including myself) and he succeeded in the task of bringing Bond into the modern world. Meanwhile Moore has slowly been climbing up my list of favorites due to the sheer volume with which I watch his films. I’m always putting on a Moore film if I want something light and easy to watch; usually it’s LALD or TMWTGG (even if both those films aren’t in my Top 10.) Plus Moore is just so affable a film presence that it’s hard not to smile whenever he’s on screen, and he really sells the dramatic moments as exemplified in both TSWLM and OP.

    But my opinions may vary, and Connery may find himself my favorite again so who knows…
  • edited May 19 Posts: 886
    DAF has one issue, it's Connery in a Roger Moore movie.

    The movie itself is not that bad. The plot was quite original and fresh at the time. And it had a plot, you can't say the same thing about LALD.

    But but it's a transitional movie...

    NSNA is better as comeback movie, the tone was right.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    Connery in DAF really isn’t an issue at all. He was game for this tone, gave a strong impression he was having fun poking fun at the Bond image, it was something different than the prior films, and he was relaxed and cool as he sauntered through the film.

    It’d be a problem only if Connery was uncomfortable and putting in a poor performance— which he is far from doing.

    The problem resides in what feels like a rushed third act that displayed the most horrible and cheap effects.

    But Connery being an issue? No way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,355
    Yeah I think the only duff performance he puts in is YOLT, and even then he's not actually bad, he's just not giving the extra 10% we're used to from him: he's still better than most movie leads in that film. I think he's great in DAF and NSNA- he completely gets the brief.
  • Posts: 886
    peter wrote: »
    Connery in DAF really isn’t an issue at all. He was game for this tone, gave a strong impression he was having fun poking fun at the Bond image, it was something different than the prior films, and he was relaxed and cool as he sauntered through the film.

    It’d be a problem only if Connery was uncomfortable and putting in a poor performance— which he is far from doing.

    The problem resides in what feels like a rushed third act that displayed the most horrible and cheap effects.

    But Connery being an issue? No way.

    Connery is fine in DAF but I think people don't like this approach because it's Connery.

    It's not what they want from Connery.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    peter wrote: »
    Connery in DAF really isn’t an issue at all. He was game for this tone, gave a strong impression he was having fun poking fun at the Bond image, it was something different than the prior films, and he was relaxed and cool as he sauntered through the film.

    It’d be a problem only if Connery was uncomfortable and putting in a poor performance— which he is far from doing.

    The problem resides in what feels like a rushed third act that displayed the most horrible and cheap effects.

    But Connery being an issue? No way.

    Connery is fine in DAF but I think people don't like this approach because it's Connery.

    It's not what they want from Connery.

    The main complaint I hear about Connery isn’t his performance, but his appearance.

    Personally, I think it lends to the setting and the film.
  • edited May 19 Posts: 3,211
    I appreciate that Connery is more relaxed in DAF and NSNA, but they’ve never stood out to me as being particularly exceptional Bond performances (certainly not compared to his first three). Then again I suppose a big selling point of both those films was that Connery was back, and I suppose it’s enough. He genuinely looks disengaged in YOLT and in TB he’s never been far off that for me.

    The best Bond performances for me are the ones where the actor’s natural strengths mix with those Bondian qualities, and you start to see them as a distinct but ultimately organic/natural version of James Bond. Ideally the script is right for them. For me it’s the likes of Craig in CR/SF, Brosnan in GE, Moore in TSWLM, and Connery in FRWL and GF.
  • Posts: 1,034
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    Well, I hope the next era is more my cup of tea. I really liked CR and the more grounded/darker style at first, it certainly was refreshing especially after the over-the-top DAD.
    But with the following films I got increasingly bored with the more serious approach and NTTD was a huge disappointment in the end, SP would have been the better final film. Also, I wasn't a fan of Craig's portrayal as James Bond (to be honest, I like him much more in the role of Benoit Blanc).
    From my point of view, things can almost only go uphill now, but I have my doubts.

    I don't know who Benoit Blanc is, but aside from that, I agree with all that. It's EXACTLY how I feel.

    I really hope I'm wrong, but I think it'll get worse with the next 'Bondverse'.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    Well, I hope the next era is more my cup of tea. I really liked CR and the more grounded/darker style at first, it certainly was refreshing especially after the over-the-top DAD.
    But with the following films I got increasingly bored with the more serious approach and NTTD was a huge disappointment in the end, SP would have been the better final film. Also, I wasn't a fan of Craig's portrayal as James Bond (to be honest, I like him much more in the role of Benoit Blanc).
    From my point of view, things can almost only go uphill now, but I have my doubts.

    I don't know who Benoit Blanc is, but aside from that, I agree with all that. It's EXACTLY how I feel.

    I really hope I'm wrong, but I think it'll get worse with the next 'Bondverse'.

    Why do you think it will get worse?
  • Posts: 3,211
    I have no doubt the next Bond era will not be to everyone's taste on this forum, and some people will have their criticisms. But then again that's pretty much the case with every Bond film.

    Personally, I'd look at it like this: there will also be people who'll really like the next film (or indeed films). There may even be future Bond fans whose first film will be Bond 26, the next actor their first Bond etc. It's likely the majority of people will enjoy the next few films, regardless of whether they're fans of the series or not.
  • edited May 19 Posts: 1,034
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Why do you think it will get worse?

    Because NTTD stunk (for me), yet lots of people loved it and it was a smash hit. So I think they'll go along the same ('ground-breaking') lines for the next one, and the next cinematic James Bond will be even further removed from the essence of the character Fleming created.
    I honestly hope I'm wrong.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Why do you think it will get worse?

    Because NTTD stunk (for me), yet lots of people loved it and it was a smash hit. So I think they'll go along the same ('ground-breaking') lines for the next one, and the next cinematic James Bond will be even further removed from the essence of the character Fleming created.
    I honestly hope I'm wrong.

    I am confident that the next Bond films will be vastly different. NTTD feels like a one time only thing to me. I don't think audiences want two of it. Besides, a fresh take on things always sells better, especially after a big hiatus and with a new actor. I think we can rest assured, @ColonelAdamski, that B26 will walk away from the recent era. The Craig era is gone. NTTD made that explicitly clear to us. There's no point for them in doing it all over again.

    Even this Craig fan doesn't want a repeat of what was done in the past couple of movies. We were served meals that I liked to eat, but they left me bloated and needing to hit the gym. It's time for some lighter meals again.
  • edited May 19 Posts: 3,211
    I think there's a case to be made that Craig's Bond as a whole was closer to the essence of the Bond from the novels than much of what we'd seen before. Honestly, some of the complaints I've seen on here about Craig's Bond can arguably be applied to Fleming's Bond.

    If anything I'd say that thematic connection to Fleming has been getting stronger in the Bond films, and it's been a long process that predates Craig. So I don't quite follow the above argument...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,715
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there's a case to be made that Craig's Bond as a whole was closer to the essence of the Bond from the novels than much of what we'd seen before. Honestly, some of the complaints I've seen on here about Craig's Bond can arguably be applied to Fleming's Bond.

    I haven't given that much thought yet, but I will. Nevertheless, books and films are two very different things, even when one inspires the other. Fleming's Bond is not necessarily EON's Bond, which is why I don't always agree that because Fleming's Bond never did a certain thing, it's not allowed for the cinematic Bond to do it. Also, Fleming's Bond stopped in the 1960's. We're 60 years past that point in the movies.

    Still, I have very few complaints about the Craig era myself, but I don't think we have to expect the next era to be identical to it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think there's a case to be made that Craig's Bond as a whole was closer to the essence of the Bond from the novels than much of what we'd seen before. Honestly, some of the complaints I've seen on here about Craig's Bond can arguably be applied to Fleming's Bond.

    If anything I'd say that thematic connection to Fleming has been getting stronger in the Bond films, and it's been a long process that predates Craig. So I don't quite follow the above argument...

    I also feel that the Craig era gave us something very close to Fleming-Bond in spirit, especially the man that was depicted in the last three books.

    So every time I hear that Craig was getting us further and further away from Fleming, I shrug my shoulders and wonder if we are all reading the same books?

    I dunno. I was incredibly pleased with Craig but we are not getting 2.0 with the new era— I personally wouldn’t want that either. I have Craig’s five. Now I’m looking forward to seeing another perspective.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,924
    DAF has one issue, it's Connery in a Roger Moore movie.

    The movie itself is not that bad. The plot was quite original and fresh at the time. And it had a plot, you can't say the same thing about LALD.

    But but it's a transitional movie...

    NSNA is better as comeback movie, the tone was right.

    Only one issue? The big problem for me, and the film has numerous, is the lackadaisical performance from Connery.
Sign In or Register to comment.