The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1152153155157158190

Comments

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited January 2014 Posts: 11,864
    RE: n the Craig era it might work to leave Bond's future uncertain at the end of a film, much like in Fleming's FRWL and YOLT.

    They could probably do a cliffhanger and avoid a complete 2-parter by wrapping it up in the PTS of the following film, but then, said film would feel unbalanced unless this previous mission was referenced throughout. Like others here have said, the whole idea doesn't really faze me.

    I'll agree with the thesis stating it 'might work', but I tend to agree more with this comment:
    barryt007 wrote:
    we all know Bond would survive or return to MI6 or whatever so what's the point of it ?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 281</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Returning Bond directors have so far made stronger films after their first one.</b></font>
  • Posts: 6,396
    Disagree.

    Hamilton never made a better film than GF.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited January 2014 Posts: 7,228
    I have to disagree with this one. TB was worse than DN and FRWL. DAF, LALD and TMWTGG are all worse than GF. I believe that FYEO is Glen's best film so he never topped that one either.

    I do think it's true in the case of Gilbert and Campbell though.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,116
    Agree

    Young, Gilbert, Glen and Campbell made better films after their first.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,311
    Some did and others didn't. I don't think you can just agree or disagree with this one.
  • I agree with what was stated above. It's very much in the middle.
  • Yes, and for every director

    Young - From Russia With Love better than Dr No

    Hamilton - LALD, TMWTGG, better than Goldfinger

    Gilbert - Moonraker,TSWLM, better than You Only Live Twice

    Glen - The Living Daylights, Octopussy, better than FYEO

    Campbell - Casino Royale better than Goldeneye

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited January 2014 Posts: 3,847
    QBranch wrote:
    I'll agree, as OHMSS/FYEO/CR are all top notch, and definitely an improvement on the films directly preceding them. However, 'bad' is too strong a word- I don't consider YOLT and MR bad entries, just not as good. ;)

    Die Another Day, CR, Skyfall and Thunderball i realy see as bad movies. So i agree with your opnion about Yolt and MR what also count in my opnion for Dr No and Goldfinger.


    RE: Returning Bond directors have so far made stronger films after their first one.

    Exept John Glen & Martin Campbell (CR 22/23) yes. FRWL (8/23) be Young his best one, Thunderball (23/23) worse. FYEO is my 4th favorite Bond movie, John Glen last movie AVTAK be my 5th favorite. TLD and Octopussy close my top 10. Only Hamilton movie in my top 10 is LALD (7/23) and sometimes TMWTGG batle with Octopussy and is ranked 11/23.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,437
    pachazo wrote:
    I have to disagree with this one. TB was worse than DN and FRWL. DAF, LALD and TMWTGG are all worse than GF. I believe that FYEO is Glen's best film so he never topped that one either.

    I do think it's true in the case of Gilbert and Campbell though.

    Everything he said.

  • edited February 2014 Posts: 12,280
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 281</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Returning Bond directors have so far made stronger films after their first one.</b></font>

    Undecided as it is a mixed bag of results really dependant upon the Director in question?
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,395
    Hmm, let see;

    Young - FRWL>DN>TB

    Hamilton - GF>LALD>GG>DAF

    Gilbert - Spy>MR>YOLT

    Glen - LTK>TLD>OP>FYEO>AVTAK

    Campbell - CR>GE

    4 - 1 on the follow up films. Agree.




  • Young - From Russia with Love, Dr No, Thunderball
    Hamilton - Goldfinger The awful trilogy as I call it
    Gilbert - You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker
    Glen - The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, A View to a Kill, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy
    Campbell - Casino Royale, Goldfinger

    Looks like I agree here as well. Only Hamilton had a better first film, but since his other three were so awful, I don't think that was very hard. In contrast, Young had 1 very good, 1 good and 1 forgettable film, Gilbert had 3 okay films, Glen had 2 very good, 2 okay and 1 pretty bad film, and Campbell had 1 very good and 1 pretty good film.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited February 2014 Posts: 20,191
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 282</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In YOLT, A) Connery looked pretty bored most of the time but B) this resulted in some unintentionally funny moments.</b></font>
  • Posts: 1,856
    A) Kind of, Some scenes he looked really bored and some he looked fine.
    B) No, I never thought it effected the performance, and props to Connery for that.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe JenaMaloneforBond.comModerator
    Posts: 12,202
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 282</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In YOLT, A) Connery looked pretty bored most of the time but B) this resulted in some unintentionally funny moments.</b></font>


    A) I disagree that he looked bored in You Only Live Twice, B) I don't recall any unintentionally funny moments.
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Agree with @Virage
  • Posts: 6,396
    A) Not only did he look bored, he looked terribly pissed off at times but I would disagree with B).
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,228
    I can't agree with part A. I don't think that he looked bored "most" of the time but there are certainly some moments in the film when I find this to be true. As for part B, I suppose that I will agree. The "turning Japanese" phase is probably the most unintentionally funny moment in the entire series and Connery's boredom contributed to this.
  • Honestly I don't think there was anything positive about Connery's YOLT performance. One of the worst Bond performances in the franchise.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Honestly I don't think there was anything positive about Connery's YOLT performance. One of the worst Bond performances in the franchise.

    Not quite. He's even worse in DAF.
  • Connery looked bored by the time of Goldfinger, never mind during You Only Live Twice. With the latter, don't think Connery seemed as disinterested for that release, but his heart still wasn't in it. I can't think of any unintentional 'funny moments' from that release either, so may have to pass on the second bit
  • Honestly I don't think there was anything positive about Connery's YOLT performance. One of the worst Bond performances in the franchise.

    Not quite. He's even worse in DAF.

    Physically he looked worse in DAF but to me he clearly had some more pep in his step. So I enjoyed his performance alot more. That $1.2 mil must've added some insentive.

  • His performance in DAF is hardly bored. There's a lot of cynicism and dark comedic sarcasm laced in it. I love it. It really fits in with the movie's vibe as a whole.

    As for the debate I think he occasionally looked bored, and YOLT is his worst performance, but he's still really good if you ask me. So...agree I guess? And I disagree with B. The unintentional humor didn't stem from him I don't think, aside from a few hilariously delivered lines of Japanese.
  • Posts: 12,280
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 282</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In YOLT, A) Connery looked pretty bored most of the time but B) this resulted in some unintentionally funny moments.</b></font>

    I think it is fair to say he was tired of the role at this point, but the barrages and intrusions into his personal space away from filming contributed to that. I think his humour was pretty much the same throughout. Going on the first part of the thesis I would say agree. But disagree on the second part.
  • DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 282</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In YOLT, A) Connery looked pretty bored most of the time but B) this resulted in some unintentionally funny moments.</b></font>
    A: I agree, not intentionally though as the producers were giving him a hard time. B: Disagree, Sean's performance was far from laughable.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 283</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>The DAF oil rig climax presents us with the most useless Bond in the entire franchise's series of climaxes.</b></font>
  • Posts: 6,396
    Oh I so agree with this. It's my least favourite climax of the lot. And that includes DAD.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,191
    Plus, Bond does almost nothing but launch a balloon and have some fun with Blofeld's sub. He and Tiffany are a worse team than Austin Powers and Felicity Shagwell.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2014 Posts: 13,311
    It may be as bad as Die Another Day's, yes. It's very poor and not enjoyable at all. It plods along. What comes afterwards is much more fun and works as a decent goodbye to Connery.
Sign In or Register to comment.