›

That Golden Era of 007

2»

Comments

  • UlyssesGamma_HoseUlyssesGamma_Hose
    Posts: 73
    The Golden Era is of course the 60s, but for me there are classic Bond movies that are true to the original Terrence Young ethos of elegance, style and violence, and those that aren't.

    The classic-style Bond movies are Dr No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Living Daylights, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    UlyssesGamma_Hose wrote:
    The classic-style Bond movies are ....Quantum of Solace.
    Disagree here, as it's kind of like LTK (I like both films, but I couldn't call them 'classic-style').
  • EllisEllis
    Posts: 224
    1962 - 1977 was the golden era of Bond, for me.
  • 00130013
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,817
    Golden era: 1962-1969
    1º transition period: 1971-1974
    Silver era: 1977-1983
    2º transition period: 1985-1989
    Bronze era: 1995-2002
    From 2006 until today is still to be consolidated as an era of it's own, so I'll call it 3º transition but could become "golden rebooted" era.
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    Classic Bond (1962-1974) - 9/10

    Cold War Bond (1977-1987) - 9/10

    Modern Bond (1989-2002) - 8/10

    Reboot Bond (2006-Present)- 7/10
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    How about:
    Classic Bond: (1962 - 1969) - 9/10

    Funny Bond: (1971 - 1985) - 7/10

    Literary Bond: (1987 - 1989) - 9/10

    Hybrid Bond: (1995 - 2002) - 8/10

    Brutal Bond: (2006 - ?) - 8/10
  • UlyssesGamma_HoseUlyssesGamma_Hose
    Posts: 73
    Terrence Young era 1962-65

    Bondmania era 1967-69

    Guy Hamilton era 1971-74

    Lewis Gilbert era 1977-79

    John Glen era 1981-89

    Brosnan glossy blockbuster era 1995-2002

    Craig back-to-basics era 2006-
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Classic Bond- 60s

    Popcorn Bond- 70s

    Cold war Bond- 80s

    Golden age- 87 to 89

    Silver age- 95 to 99

    The dark ages- 2002, revisited in 2008

    Reboot Bond- 2006

    Back to the old days- 2012(?) to ?
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Popcorn Bond- 70s

    I miss Popcorn Bond

  • UlyssesGamma_HoseUlyssesGamma_Hose
    edited October 2012 Posts: 73
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Popcorn Bond- 70s

    I miss Popcorn Bond

    All Bond is popcorn Bond. Even the books are written as pure entertainment.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited October 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Popcorn Bond- 70s

    I miss Popcorn Bond

    I don't think anybody could pull it off better than Moore. But Bond is always changing, it might come back once Craig leaves, or maybe even before that.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    Golden era Bond for me is the definitive version, and I enjoy Majesty's, Goldeneye and Casino Royale, and even a flawed film like QOS, which at least attempts the right tone.



    I simply can't watch a Roger Moore film and take any of them seriously at all. They're just plain...silly.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    chrisisall wrote:
    How about:
    Classic Bond: (1962 - 1969) - 9/10

    Funny Bond: (1971 - 1985) - 7/10

    Literary Bond: (1987 - 1989) - 9/10

    Hybrid Bond: (1995 - 2002) - 8/10

    Brutal Bond: (2006 - ?) - 8/10

    I like this but I would flip the Funny and Hybrid ratings and give Moore's run an 8.5. Brosnan is lucky to get a 7/10, more like 6.5 overall. And Craig is heading for a 9/10 if SF is as good as the early reviews are saying.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Serious Bond and Epitome of Fleming creation 1962 - 63

    Disappointing Bond but still serious and plausible, but needless humor at such an early stage 1964

    Improved Bond from the immediate past and back to almost his initial greatness 1965

    Disappointing and lacklustre Bond 1967

    Fresh Bond and eventful and new life 1969

    Ridiculous Bond and a major disappointment and franchise slipping away 1971

    Younger Bond and exciting and lively and action all the way 1973 - 81

    Older Bond and (almost) into the depths of despair 1983 - 85

    Fresh Bond, serious once again, no nonsense and lively for the most part, could be the best ever Bond 1987 - 89

    New Bond, serious, action packed, plenty to get inolved in 1995

    Disappointing Bond, sometimes serious, dull and mundane adventures 1997

    Back to some greatness, action, suspense, Bond redeems himself 1999

    Outrageous Bond, adolescent nonsense, ridiculous scenes, Bond almost dies again 2002

    New Bond, back to the seriousness not seen since the 1980s, hard edged and in your face, if a little banal sometimes 2006 - 08

    ? - 2012 -
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    edited January 2013 Posts: 546
    For me, it's difinitley The Golden Era of 007 from the 1962-1971.
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    Anyone who has read my other postings will know what I am going to say. 1962 to 1972 was the GOLDEN ERA ( with a nod to 1983 NSNA) anything with Sean in it is worth watching.Lazenby was also an 'ideal' Bond (silly fool for quitting). From the beginning of the Roger Moore Era 1973 right through to Skyfall 2012 is what I would call the Excrement Era - none of this mindless Crap is worth commiting to Film and every copy of this dumbned down junk should be put in an incinerator and burnt. Good riddance.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,840
    I think the first four films were the Golden Era, both because of the high quality of the movies and the popularity of the franchise. Quality dropped with YOLT, then sadly OHMSS was not very popular in spite of a massive improvement.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Jason19 wrote:
    Anyone who has read my other postings will know what I am going to say. 1962 to 1972 was the GOLDEN ERA ( with a nod to 1983 NSNA) anything with Sean in it is worth watching.Lazenby was also an 'ideal' Bond (silly fool for quitting). From the beginning of the Roger Moore Era 1973 right through to Skyfall 2012 is what I would call the Excrement Era - none of this mindless Crap is worth commiting to Film and every copy of this dumbned down junk should be put in an incinerator and burnt. Good riddance.

    With all due respect, are you even a Bond fan. What I mean is, Yes, not every release since the early 1970s has been Oscar worthy or able to rival Gone With The Wind or anything, but to say 'from the beginning of the Moore era, right through to the present day, is a crap era for Bond - none of this garbage, so to speak, is worthy of viewing and should be put in an incinerator'

    That's merely an asinine statement that simply isn't true either. There's been some truly fine releases since 1973 up to today that hardly need any elaboration. You're essentially saying Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig are non event Bond's and all their work is lousy. I don't know what was the thinking behind that

    Once again, probably the golden era for Bond was around Goldfinger in '64, when Bond was already familiar and audiences flocked to see it, after Connery's superlative performances in Dr No and Russia. But unfortunately, his third appearance wasn't quite so attractive. But that was a special time to see Bond some will remember
  • Jason19Jason19
    Posts: 90
    I can sympathise with Baltimore-007, and I can see his point. Some of the Bond films since 1973 have had occassional good moments. And I realise I must seem to be bad tempered and intolerant.But that is exactly what I am in this case- bad tempered and intolerant. None of the Bonds since Lazenby and Connery suit the role (though Tim Dalton is closest) the scripts also are woeful - best thing about them is the music.As for casting - before Dan Craig was cast there is an actor who stood out head and shoulders above others for the part - his name is Jonathan Cake - and he can be seen as the Gladiator in 'Empire' on the History channel. Ah! you might say - but isn't he a bit rugged? - Precisely , Cake is tall and dark haired (brown eyes ) with rugged good looks. Bond was never meant to be a pretty-boy. Casting a diminutive little weight lifter with Blond hair (Craig) just won't do. What are these casting directors thinking?
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Lucas. North from the BBC series Spooks a good enough actor but honestly not a patch on
    Dan. IMHO .
Sign In or Register to comment.