Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by mr_spenalzo, Mar 12, 2018.
Glamour and Bond always eye candy. You can be dangerous and sexy at the same time.
No probs with your top five. All rewatchable I may add imo.
Very solid list there.
There are a lot of mistakes in the Bond films but I try to ignore them, because I do not want to ruin the fantasy.
But Blofeld not knowing Bond in Her Majesties made no sense. I mean he was just wounded trying to kill Bond in the last movie!
Of course at the time the movie came out I did not know that they made the movies out of sequence with the books.
And Blofeld had hair in Thunderball!
Or am I wrong to assume that Number One (with the white cat) and Blofeld (with the white cat) are the same person?
Since this thread has moved on beyond the film by film aspect, I wanted to pose some questions/thoughts.
I often wonder how different (better) somethings would be if casting or other aspects had been a little different.
I wonder if Moore had started with Diamonds and ended with For Your Eyes Only....
I think Bond would have been more energized with a change for its actual 80s films, especially a A View to a Kill. This could have been a lot better with Dalton in the role.
I liked Brosnan a lot in the role, but man the movies after Goldeneye were so generic.... I guess, it made sense in its era, like they all do in some way, but just forgettable.
Another aspect is several films are good in part, but have parts that take down the film from being something better overall... I felt like Moonraker starts off decent, but sorry, the space thing I can't do.
I also feel that Octopussy was almost great too. It's measured, like For Your Eyes Only for the most part, but lacks a last act to hold it together...
He also had hair again by Diamonds Are Forever, so the bald head was probably a fashion decision.
At least gave Dr.Evil some screen time.
All the actors who followed Connery -- Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan -- were fine in the role. I have no complaints about the actors. I have complaints about how the films were written and directed. With the producers insisting on slapstick and parody, with Michael J. Wilson ruining script after script with his stultifying inane rewrites, and John Glen's thoughtless overbearing direction, it no longer mattered who was playing the part. Each actor in turn was undone by the producers bad decisions, Wilson's determination to ruin every script, and Glen's inability to know what's what in a story.
I have no major complaints regarding the direction or writing in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I thought it was one of the best of the series, and only really suffered from Connery's absence.
I agree. OHMSS is a peak in the series and one of my all-time favorite films. I wasn't referring to OHMSS. Perhaps I should have pointed out the trouble started with Diamonds Are Forever and the Tom Mankiewicz scripts and got worse when Michael Wilson was put in charge of the writing on The Spy Who Loved Me. There was always some saving grace, however -- Gilbert's direction, the photography and locations, Barry's scores, Moore's presence, the co-stars, Maibaum's baseline in the scripts. But Wilson and his crony Glen just pounded the franchise to death. License to Kill was extremely shoddy filmmaking, poorly photographed, no sense of timing or movement, everything sledgehammered.
I didn’t know that Michael G Wilson had a hand in all of those scripts.
I’m interested to hear what you think he did in the rewrites to bring these movies down.
The only problems I had with that was the sideways car and how he too easily dunked the girls.
Only problem with Let was too much Sheriff.
Only problem with Man was once again too much Sheriff and the dumb flying car bits.
Only problem with Love and Moon was Jaws.
Are there other problems I am missing?
Yes, but that's a good start.
I'll write something up tonight or tomorrow when things calm down around here.
BOND 25 working title is Shatterhand.
OHMSS is peak in the series"?
Lots of disdain for this Bond (1969) offering. Always rated it myself!!!
Yeah that came out in August 2017. The name references YOLT and the "Never Dream Of Dying" non-Fleming novel.
Finally watched Spectre.
Well it started off good.
Was it worse than Skyfall?
Don't think they'll use it, not a a good James Bond title
Yes the opening tracking shot is great. But at the end of the PTS Bond should land the helicopter on the hotel roof, rappel down the side, jump in through the window to Estrella and say, "Now, where were we?"
Well this next Bond film is my least anticipated 007 effort.
"Expect nothing and you will never be disappointed."
„Do you expect me to talk „
The book that just came out (essentially a prequel to Casino Royale) would make a good movie, but it's set in the early 50's and as such has no gadgets. It has a good ending, tho.
"We don’t really go in for that sort of thing anymore."
"What if Omeeeeeeega writes us a bigger cheque?"
Yeah, there is a lot of product and car placement advertisement in 007. I just sold a pair of the Tom Ford 007 aviator sunglasses popularized in Quantum of Solace on eBay.
Still, the gadgets and fancy shmancy weapons are scaled way back in Craig-era Bond compared to what it was before.
Separate names with a comma.