Sterile from his exposure to radiation on Crab Key no doubt. :lol
Questions About Bond Films that You Have been Afraid to Ask SPOILERS
- Thread starter thegreatgalling
- Start date
That's actually really funny. We could use that to explain everything.
Master Dahark
Well-Known Member
Getting repeatedly hit there in Casino Royale couldn't have helped either. Ow- I wince just thinking about it!!
Definitely! That's the reboot explanation. :thumbsup
IMIM2
Sr Member
He didn't pull out in time, he always "finish his job".
He carries protection(s) with him all the time, and it's not blanks.
Maybe that'll explain. (but I think that applies in later Bonds, definitely not in Connery era?)
Thanks for the explanation Michael.
I was comparing era by era, anyway (Moore/Brosnan)
But that helped me getting better understanding
He carries protection(s) with him all the time, and it's not blanks.
Maybe that'll explain. (but I think that applies in later Bonds, definitely not in Connery era?)
Thanks for the explanation Michael.
I was comparing era by era, anyway (Moore/Brosnan)
But that helped me getting better understanding
Call me naive but I highly doubt that Bond is the type to wear protection... :lol
PPK:
Compact +1
Coolness +5
=6
P99:
More Round Capacity +2
Larger Caliber +1
=3
Just my opinion lol
KojiroVance
Sr Member
Problem with most films is they try t please too many people with too many tropes and gags from previous successes. Resulting in a jambalaya hodge podge mess. This started with GOLDFINGER, resulting in an extravagant mess that looks and feels right but plays out like a fart in a space suit, just so wrong. I know, people love it, it was a 1st rate flick, but Bond hardly does anything right. I'll post a list one o' these days.....
More random responses.... Peter Hunt developed his trademark editing for action scenes with Terence Young, he simply amped it up and perfected it in OHMSS.
Moore's best film? Hard to say, they all had nice points, but also some blunders (see paragraph 1). Despite some goofiness in FYEO (Grandpa James trying not to get raped by Lynn Holly Johnson, looking like Melina"s creepy bachelor uncle) , he kills Loque (sp?) in icy cold blood. (Moore didn't want to do it I think John Glen talked him into it.) A high point of his tenure. All the others after Golden Gun give me indigestion.
I liked Craig's unbridled egoism and confidence in CR, it was in character. But he stomped around like a drum major, as much up and down as forward movement, that he couldn't sneak up on a deaf drunkard sleeping off a bender.
QOS, I'd just wish would go away. See para 1 again.
Thunderball.... One of those i like for its scope and length (not rushing through necessary setup) but again making incomprehensible plot decisions.
I still love OHMSS through clenched teeth. Some brilliant moments. Ever notice that the treacly Christmas song (like "Mango Tree," it's a top 40" hit" thats playing ubiquitously behind the story) is playing when they're closing in on him @ the skating rink, and the children's chorus gets to the word "love" as Tracy skates up into view? Hunt and Barry paraphrased a page of Bond's thoughts in the book in a two second moment....
I need to get that MAKING OF OHMSS book.........
// Sent from a mobile. Misspellings happen. //
More random responses.... Peter Hunt developed his trademark editing for action scenes with Terence Young, he simply amped it up and perfected it in OHMSS.
Moore's best film? Hard to say, they all had nice points, but also some blunders (see paragraph 1). Despite some goofiness in FYEO (Grandpa James trying not to get raped by Lynn Holly Johnson, looking like Melina"s creepy bachelor uncle) , he kills Loque (sp?) in icy cold blood. (Moore didn't want to do it I think John Glen talked him into it.) A high point of his tenure. All the others after Golden Gun give me indigestion.
I liked Craig's unbridled egoism and confidence in CR, it was in character. But he stomped around like a drum major, as much up and down as forward movement, that he couldn't sneak up on a deaf drunkard sleeping off a bender.
QOS, I'd just wish would go away. See para 1 again. Thunderball.... One of those i like for its scope and length (not rushing through necessary setup) but again making incomprehensible plot decisions.
I still love OHMSS through clenched teeth. Some brilliant moments. Ever notice that the treacly Christmas song (like "Mango Tree," it's a top 40" hit" thats playing ubiquitously behind the story) is playing when they're closing in on him @ the skating rink, and the children's chorus gets to the word "love" as Tracy skates up into view? Hunt and Barry paraphrased a page of Bond's thoughts in the book in a two second moment....
I need to get that MAKING OF OHMSS book.........
// Sent from a mobile. Misspellings happen. //
I think you couldn't be more wrong if you said the sky was green! :lol
The whole point of a spy story is that at the start nobody knows anything. That's the reason we're telling the story, to learn and unravel the plot with the characters. The point isn't for the characters to "do the right thing", only what makes sense to their character based on their knowledge at the time. Let's look at Goldfinger:
- Auric Goldfinger is suspected of being a white collar smuggler and Bond is told to observe. Bond suspects and then confirms that Goldfinger cheats at cards. Bond's character is to stir things up to get a response (ie: something to observe) so upon discovering this he gives Goldfinger a little smack. This had the purpose of letting him know that there's "someone watching". Smartest thing to do in hindsight? Not at all. However it's completely in character and has been used in past to great success. When someone thinks they've been caught they tend to open up their game a little and reveal things.
- Bond is then knocked out and the girl is painted gold. Makes sense when you think about it considering that the baddies don't know who Bond is or is working for yet. Kill the traitor and leave a messenger.
- Bond is then scolded for his little game and briefed on the big picture so far as MI6 is concerned. He arranges to meet Goldfinger under the premise of being a gold smuggler.
- Bond meets Goldfinger and realizes he's being cheated again. He then cheats to make sure he doesn't lose the government's property. Makes sense although he's a bit obvious about it, I'll grant you that, but that's totally within Bond's character. Bond is given a final warning.
- Bond tracks Goldfinger to see where he's going. No problems here.
- Bond gets shot at, doesn't see the assailant, but then notices the same girl that had passed him ages ago passes him again. He "pulls her over" and then notices the gun case. He knows she's lying about the skates but lets her go anyway because he has to stay on the trail of Goldfinger and he's a sucker for an attractive lady. He should have questioned her with the back of his hand but his actions fit his character.
- He then sneaks to the complex and finds out how they're smuggling. He also overhears "Operation Grand Slam" and takes note. Upon leaving he comes across Tilly. He discovers who she is and they try to escape. That doesn't end well for Tilly.
- Bond then tries to escape again. Doesn't end well for him.
- Goldfinger tries to kill Bond in an elaborate way now that he knows who he is (while not revealing any of his plan it should be noted). Bond bluffs his way out of it using the info he just gained.
- Bond wakes up on a plane and decides to let things unfold. Clearly Goldfinger has decided he should live for now and maybe he can gain more info.
- Bond escapes from his prison cell and is able to discover what Operation Grand Slam is. Good spy work but he gets caught. He tries to get a note to the CIA but fails when Mr. Solo is crushed (good idea otherwise). He then proves to Goldfinger that he knows what the plot is. This knowledge combined with Felix snooping makes Goldfinger decide to make Bond look like he's a guest.
- Bond appeals to Ms. Galore's "maternal instincts". Best move he makes in the film it turns out.
- Bond is then brought along for the raid. Smart move that Goldfinger brings him? No, but in his vain character.
- While a battle rages outside Bond tries to get free (makes sense). And then does battle with Odd Job (makes sense). And then tries to disarm the bomb (makes sense).
- Bond fights with Goldfinger on the plane and Goldfinger dies. He and Ms. Galore parachute to safety.
I see nothing in that film that is out of character or doesn't make sense in a linear plot.
:thumbsup
Although it should be noted that I COMPLETELY disagree in terms of GF it is certainly true of most of the Moore & Brosnan films
TSWLM isn't too shabby but I agree that FYEO is Moore's best.
I liked Craig's unbridled egoism and confidence in CR, it was in character. But he stomped around like a drum major, as much up and down as forward movement, that he couldn't sneak up on a deaf drunkard sleeping off a bender.
QOS is a lot better than people give it credit for and is completely realistic for Bond's character and his level of knowledge of the plot. There are a few points where it doesn't make total sense yes. However I think if it had been edited differently it would have had a much better reception.
Not really. There are maybe one or two but overall again, it makes sense based on the characters and their knowledge at the time. YOLT on the other hand...
OHMSS is brilliant and the closest to the book of any of the films. However I HATE that Christmas song! :lol
Clearly as you can see from my last post I've got time to respond to this now... :lol
Welcome...
Definitely in my top 5. :thumbsup As I've said before it's the closest to the original book. Have you read the novels? They're awesome.
Peter Hunt, the director of OHMSS, was the editor on the early Bond films and he applied the same aggressive pacing to this film. It definitely sings in that regard.
Lazenby was also a different kind of Bond. He didn't seem as suave as Connery and showed his weakness a lot more but a lot of that is in the original Flemming character so it was nice to see it fleshed out. This was definitely the story to do it with.
Well written script for sure. :thumbsup TWINE title was actually taken from this. My favourite part of that film is when she scoffs "antiquated sentiment" and he replies "family motto". Just about the only good thing in that movie... :lol
Can't argue that! The skiing scenes are epic.
Agreed, but to be fair there isn't much competition. Blofeld was unfortunately not handled well in his other on screen appearances.
And here's where we disagree! :lol He was a model with no acting experience. While he excelled at the action sequences you could tell he was a little... "off" in the dramatic sequences and he wasn't really believable as the suave ladies man at times. If he had done a second film I think he would have been MUCH better. Unfortunately he made a lot of enemies by being a total ***** on set. Even to the point that Diana Rigg would chew garlic before a kissing scene to get back at him.
Actually not true. See my Peter Hunt comment previously. There are some great examples of this in FRWL (1963) and Thunderball (1965).
A perfect match to a James Bond acting on his own without MI6. :thumbsup
Yep, they nailed it with that shot!
Yep. Great ending image seeing the bullet hole in the windshield and her sitting there. If this film had been done with Connery he wouldn't have cried. It's definitely better with Bond near tears.
Very underrated. He's my third favourite actor in the role after Connery & Craig (he's very close to Craig).
Moore had the look for his first three films, then he really started to lose it fast.
Goldeneye is awesome and the pre-credits of TND are epic but aside from that? Ya, not a huge fan.
The one and only!!!
I would have to agree and disagree with you here. Is he as charismatic as Connery? No. But who the hell is? :lol
I thinks he holds up really well in a casino but I think the problem is that the new scripts don't have him in those situations much so we don't see a lot of it. It's definitely a more modern charm that he has as opposed to the old suave we're used to.
A good one!
I'm winding down seeing all of them on the big screen.
Seen 21, only two to go: LALD & TSWLM.
Welcome...
Definitely in my top 5. :thumbsup As I've said before it's the closest to the original book. Have you read the novels? They're awesome.
Peter Hunt, the director of OHMSS, was the editor on the early Bond films and he applied the same aggressive pacing to this film. It definitely sings in that regard.
Lazenby was also a different kind of Bond. He didn't seem as suave as Connery and showed his weakness a lot more but a lot of that is in the original Flemming character so it was nice to see it fleshed out. This was definitely the story to do it with.
Well written script for sure. :thumbsup TWINE title was actually taken from this. My favourite part of that film is when she scoffs "antiquated sentiment" and he replies "family motto". Just about the only good thing in that movie... :lol
Can't argue that! The skiing scenes are epic.
Agreed, but to be fair there isn't much competition.
Blofeld was unfortunately not handled well in his other on screen appearances.And here's where we disagree! :lol He was a model with no acting experience. While he excelled at the action sequences you could tell he was a little... "off" in the dramatic sequences and he wasn't really believable as the suave ladies man at times. If he had done a second film I think he would have been MUCH better. Unfortunately he made a lot of enemies by being a total ***** on set. Even to the point that Diana Rigg would chew garlic before a kissing scene to get back at him.
Actually not true. See my Peter Hunt comment previously.
There are some great examples of this in FRWL (1963) and Thunderball (1965).A perfect match to a James Bond acting on his own without MI6. :thumbsup
Yep, they nailed it with that shot!
Yep. Great ending image seeing the bullet hole in the windshield and her sitting there. If this film had been done with Connery he wouldn't have cried. It's definitely better with Bond near tears.
Very underrated. He's my third favourite actor in the role after Connery & Craig (he's very close to Craig).
Moore had the look for his first three films, then he really started to lose it fast.
Goldeneye is awesome and the pre-credits of TND are epic but aside from that? Ya, not a huge fan.
The one and only!!!
I would have to agree and disagree with you here. Is he as charismatic as Connery? No. But who the hell is? :lol
I thinks he holds up really well in a casino but I think the problem is that the new scripts don't have him in those situations much so we don't see a lot of it. It's definitely a more modern charm that he has as opposed to the old suave we're used to.
Anyway, that's my 2-cent introductory contribution to this thread.
A good one!
I'm winding down seeing all of them on the big screen.
Seen 21, only two to go: LALD & TSWLM.
thegreatgalling
Master Member
ARROGANCE
I disagree with this only in how much I enjoyed the arrogance Lazenby conveys. I know I have discussed that previously, but damn the guy was cocky in real life and it bled right into the way he played the role. If only they could have dealt with him being an ******, I think we would have been treated a few more great performances. He has an incredibly high opinion of himself, and every line carries this. Its the way his lines are delivered through a smirk through the whole movie.
INTELLIGENCE
In the Connery films, the really only time we see Bond as a smart Aleck regarded his love of the drink. Compare "I am referring to the original vintage the Sherry is based" to "I know it when I see it" (about Gold). Lazenby's butterfly line establishes Bond's book intelligence for the first time, a common theme in the Moore films.
FEROCITY
I also don't agree that he missed his dramatic moments. To be fair, much of his dialogue was dubbed as Sir Hilary, and what we see at Bond was more than adequate. What scenes do you mean OB? I love how pissed he gets in M's office. Take HIM off Operation Bedlam? He's quitting MI6.
He is far more temperamental and rash throughout the whole film. This is an angle we really don't get to see. Lazenby is explosive. He fights with more force and speed than anything we saw Connery deliver, and his personality conveys a certain ferocity we didn't see until Dalton, and then Craig.
I also don't see what you mean about not being suave with the ladies? Despite some rumors of issues, I thought his chemistry with Riggs was apparent and explosive. As far as the other ladies go, Bond is the first handsome man in their company for quite a while. I don't think he needed to bring his "A game," although I thought he did.
Finally, that garlic story was never established as being true. Hunt did acknowledge the two had a few issues, he claims they were quickly resolved and the two got along well. According to Lazenby (who has been honest about his bad behavior), they were eating lunch on set when Riggs yelled over to him "George, I am having garlic for lunch to punish you during our love scenes!" which received some laughter. Apparently, an enterprising journalist in the room heard it and made the story far more than it was.
thegreatgalling
Master Member
PS, This thread has spiraled into awesomeness.
EN-GARDE! :lol
He certainly did have a high opinion of himself which was part of the problem. Bond in the books is INCREDIBLY insecure. His confident persona is for the most part just that, a persona. Every Bond has gotten this wrong to a certain point but I think you nailed it on the head when you said he always delivers with a smirk and that's not the character AT ALL.
Clearly you need to re-watch the films and re-read the books! The Bond in the novels would never insult M that way for starters. Secondly he isn't nearly that type of genius in the books. He's devilishly smart yes, but the things he knows most about? High society life. It's most strongly portrayed in the novel Moonraker where it's clear that his entire goal in life is to live as well as possible and leave as little in is bank account as he can when he dies. Thirdly we see that knowledge in the Connery films over and over again just not in as blatant a use. Moore was the worst. "What you do you about this?" then he recites the dictionary definition. Tedious and not clever at all.
Connery however, upon learning about Goldfinger's plan has an entire conversation with him based on knowledge none of us would have. He, much more believably, knows how long the gold would be radioactive and the effect it would have on both value and the world economy. He's even cheeky about it.
Also, it makes far more sense that he has an extensive knowledge of drinks and the luxurious life compared to other things based on the aforementioned love of luxury.
I never said he missed them, just that he was "off". What scenes? Well, how about the one you mentioned. He doesn't play it like a man who's gone to battle with M countless times before and has a deep respect for him, he plays it like a child having a tantrum and then is treated as such. The acting's not bad but it's wrong for the character.
Temperamental and rash is a great way to describe it. It's not the character though. Lazenby IS explosive but I would strongly disagree that we didn't see that in Connery's early performances. The struggle with Red Grant on the train is still the standard to which Bond fights are held. Bond is SO dynamic there! There are other examples as well.
I think you're mixing the script with the acting here. The script says the ladies swoon with him so they do. I didn't see that coming from him though in his performance. At least not as much as it did with Connery. So far as his scenes with Tracy? For the first half of the film he clearly is too sincere in his portrayal. He's not supposed to love her yet but he plays it like he is.
Had the fantastic opportunity to meet John Glen a week ago. His first Bond film was OHMSS and he insisted the story was true. He was the B unit director and apparently they even refused to be there at the same time to shoot his bits.
He certainly did have a high opinion of himself which was part of the problem. Bond in the books is INCREDIBLY insecure. His confident persona is for the most part just that, a persona. Every Bond has gotten this wrong to a certain point but I think you nailed it on the head when you said he always delivers with a smirk and that's not the character AT ALL.
Clearly you need to re-watch the films and re-read the books! The Bond in the novels would never insult M that way for starters. Secondly he isn't nearly that type of genius in the books. He's devilishly smart yes, but the things he knows most about? High society life. It's most strongly portrayed in the novel Moonraker where it's clear that his entire goal in life is to live as well as possible and leave as little in is bank account as he can when he dies. Thirdly we see that knowledge in the Connery films over and over again just not in as blatant a use. Moore was the worst. "What you do you about this?" then he recites the dictionary definition. Tedious and not clever at all.
Connery however, upon learning about Goldfinger's plan has an entire conversation with him based on knowledge none of us would have. He, much more believably, knows how long the gold would be radioactive and the effect it would have on both value and the world economy. He's even cheeky about it.
Also, it makes far more sense that he has an extensive knowledge of drinks and the luxurious life compared to other things based on the aforementioned love of luxury.
I never said he missed them, just that he was "off". What scenes? Well, how about the one you mentioned. He doesn't play it like a man who's gone to battle with M countless times before and has a deep respect for him, he plays it like a child having a tantrum and then is treated as such. The acting's not bad but it's wrong for the character.
Temperamental and rash is a great way to describe it. It's not the character though. Lazenby IS explosive but I would strongly disagree that we didn't see that in Connery's early performances. The struggle with Red Grant on the train is still the standard to which Bond fights are held. Bond is SO dynamic there! There are other examples as well.
I think you're mixing the script with the acting here. The script says the ladies swoon with him so they do. I didn't see that coming from him though in his performance. At least not as much as it did with Connery. So far as his scenes with Tracy? For the first half of the film he clearly is too sincere in his portrayal. He's not supposed to love her yet but he plays it like he is.
Had the fantastic opportunity to meet John Glen a week ago. His first Bond film was OHMSS and he insisted the story was true. He was the B unit director and apparently they even refused to be there at the same time to shoot his bits.
Let me clarify though that at no point did I think Lazenby did a bad job, he did a great one, but so far as the portrayal goes it's not quite there yet. He needed another movie or two to polish it off.
He's infinitely better than Moore...
He's infinitely better than Moore...
He did and he admits it. Quite frankly? He had the world and ****ed it up. :lol
I would have loved to see him do a few more films. He could have done them for about 15 years if he wanted thanks to his age.
Similar threads
