KojiroVance
Sr Member
I think you're supposed to. I think Barry was parodying sickly sweet pop holiday songs.
// Sent from a mobile. Misspellings happen. //
Questions About Bond Films that You Have been Afraid to Ask SPOILERS
- Thread starter thegreatgalling
- Start date
I think you're supposed to. I think Barry was parodying sickly sweet pop holiday songs.
// Sent from a mobile. Misspellings happen. //
No doubt! :lol
Oooooh THEMS FIGHTING WORDS. :lol
Mike, I love ya, but after reading that, I am bringing out my PPK to your Golden gun and challenging you to a fair fight, mano a mano.
Very true but this thread is in the MOVIE discussion section and is called Questions about the Bond FILMS. I am sure this argument would be perfect for the "Book Discussion" section of nowhere to be found. :lol
Of course I understand the books are THE place to start, but according to the books Rosa Klebb never defected, Kananga was a member of SMERSH, and apart from the Connery movies, any other movie tramples on the source material or isn't based on any. My arguments are based on the theory that what we see on film is canon for the films, not the books. That means, Bond could be a cross dresser in the books, but it doesn't make it so for the films.
I don't disagree with "being the smart kid in class" was a clear trait of Moore's, as I stated, but generally, I still stand by the fact that Connery's book intelligence hardly lit a candle to Moore's, nor was explored to the same effect (apart from drink, which I previously stated).
Connery:
ON DIAMONDS
"James Bond: Well, hardest substance found in nature, they cut glass, suggests marriage, I suppose it replaced the dog as the girl's best friend. That's about it.
M: Refreshing to hear that there is one subject you're not an expert on!" (Referencing his 1851 line about the alcohol).
Moore:
ON SCARAMANGA
"M: What do you know about a man called Scaramanga?
Bond: Scaramanga? Oh, yes! The Man with the Golden Gun. Born in a circus. Father, the ringmaster. Mother, English. A snake charmer. A spectacular trick-shot artist by the time he was ten and a local Rio gunman. The KGB trained him in Europe,where he became an overworked, underpaid assassin. He went independent in the late 60’s. Current price: one million dollars a hit. No... er... photograph on file. But he does have one distinguishing feature, however. A superfluous papilla…A mammary gland. A third nipple, sir. He always uses a golden bullet,hence ''Man with the Golden Gun''.Present domicile unknown.
…I think that's all.
Why, sir?”
Connery's Bond is intelligent, but his knowledge (heck even like you said of the literary Bond) is of High Society and booze. Lazenby was the first to introduce his intelligence generally, and Moore's Bond ran with it. I actually don't mind it, as it often makes for some of the funnier dialogue (without resorting to lame physical humor which I hate - like pigeons making awkward double takes).
I see your point about being too smart that it leans toward absurd, but Bond's knowledge of science makes Moore's character a bit more interesting in HIS films. Not sure if that trait should be carried to other Bond's unless believable. In his case, I thought it was believable. And heck, Bond is smarter than the average bear, most (super)heroes are.
Yes, that is one example, but Connery is discussing radioactive fallout, something we KNOW he has experience in dealing with in Dr. No.
Here is the conversation:
"Bond: You plan to break into the world's largest bank, but not to steal anything.* Why?
Goldfinger: Go on, Mister Bond.
Bond: Mister Ling, the Red Chinese agent at the factory.* He's a specialist in nuclear fission. ‑- But of course! His government's given you a bomb!
Goldfinger: I prefer to call it an atomic device.* It's small, but particularly dirty.
Bond: Cobalt and iodine?
Goldfinger: Precisely.
Bond: Well, if you explode it in Fort Knox, the, uh, entire gold supply of the United States will be radioactive for... fifty-seven years!
Goldfinger: Fifty-eight, to be exact.
Bond: I apologize, Goldfinger.* It's an inspired deal.* They get what they want ‑- economic chaos in the West ‑- and the value of your gold increases many times.
Goldfinger: I conservatively estimate ten times."
First, the cobalt and iodine line isn't very impressive if you know anything about bombs. In fact, Goldfinger was simply being coy when he calls the nuclear bomb a "dirty one." A cobalt bomb is equally known as...a "dirty bomb" because of its (assumed) nature to spread more radioactive fallout than a regular bomb. I'd believe Bond would know this.
The 57 years line (which he incidentally gets partially wrong - it's 58) would follow if you knew the half-life of such radiation, which I also believe Bond would know- especially after being briefed ad nauseum about nuclear weapons as he would have been.
The Gold growing in value "many times" with Goldfinger providing the estimate was also not impressive.
So is Connery smart? Absolutely. Moore smart? Absolutely and then some. Doesn't mean anything about my appreciation for either one.
Respectfully, I think you were the one mishmashing the script and the acting. Bond throws a fit and quits the MI6. That happens because it was written that way. How do you show deep respect while slamming a door and immediately quitting. The interaction is short and sweet. M pushes his buttons, and 007 reacts impulsively. You say "the acting is not bad, but it's wrong for the character." I take that to mean the scene itself. In that case, that is not the argument I was addressing, only Lazenby's performance.
I will add to that discussion however, that yes I agree the scene stands in contrast to the other Bond's discussions with M. Compare to Bond's quiet dissension to forced gun change in Dr. No. He doesn't kick over M's desk and yell curse words. He is cool as a cucumber. But this is a different actor, at a different time in his career, and his one movie is of course going to contrast him to the others. Maybe if he was Bond for five or six movies we would see a relationship with M evolve.
Maybe there was more to the scene we don't see. M is being particularly dickish this day. His nose is buried in his papers and he doesn't give Lazenby the time of day. He insults him, insinuates disgust, lack of trust, and respect, and takes Bond off an assignment that has plagued him for months, even years. This resentment might be building, and as sometime happens between two rocks, there is an eruption. Neither men mean it, and both men respect one another, as evidenced by M's phone call to Moneypenny. Bond's kiss on her cheek reinforces he didn't MEAN to quit.
This reminds me of a great story about when Lazenby first sought the part. He didn't have an appointment to see Harry Saltzman, in fact, he snuck passed his secretary. Walking through the doorway, he leaned against it and said "I heard you are looking for James Bond." Saltzman was on the phone and had his feet on the desk. He took one look at Lazenby and motioned big for Lazenby to sit. Lazenby took one look at Saltzman's feet, raised his eyebrows as if to say "move your ****** feet first" and walked over and looked out the window instead. Saltzman immediately hung up his call and put his feet down. In a quiet voice he said "have a seat." And from that moment, he pushed Lazenby as Bond.
That was Lazenby. And that was his Bond too.
But it IS the character. Because he is that way on screen. You seem to have a set of qualities you feel Bond has based on your interpretation of the novels. But the films define the film Bond. Bond IS explosive, because we see him act this way under THESE circumstances. I am not sure this is true disagreement. I am saying Lazenby was MORE explosive not that Connery never was. Sure Connery had a good tussle with Grant, but no Bond was as athletic as Lazenby until Craig. Would I call his early performances explosive? Not really in Dr. No. FRWL, I will give you the Grant fight (which I don't see as any more brutal as Moore's fight with Jaws or Teehee or Brosnan's fight with 006, but Lazenby's action scenes were contrasted with the Connery fights before his. They are just quicker, faster paced, and more brutal.
You accused me of the same thing I thought you were doing. :lol The script says the ladies swoon. So? Lazenby was a model. Here he is, a handsome dude strolling in a place where women have no access to men for MONTHS. They swoon in a large part because of this. Why do I know this? BECAUSE RUBY TELLS HIM. She explains that you can't count the staff and she has been without the company of A man in a long time. That doesn't take away that Lazenby spouts his cheesy lines about the firelight, and whatnot.
Did it matter Lazenby wasn't Don Suave? No. How do I know BECAUSE HE IS PURPOSELY BORING FOR THE PERSONA HE IS PORTRAYING. Hell the film purposely shows the girls yawning and sleeping after his discussion about the book.
Connery was charming, sure. More charming than Lazenby? Considering we only see this one movie, I will agree - But I never argued Lazenby was more charming, only charming when he needed to be.
And as far as Lazenby not meeting the scripts call for swooning, I'd buy his effect on women ANY DAY compared to ladies swooning in any Moore film after TSWLM. Ladies always swoon for Bond, in every movie, no matter how he looks or what he says. It's just a fact. :lol
Didn't mind this in the slightest. Only made his love for her more believable. What you are basically saying is that they have immediate chemistry and it shows. His infatuation and fascination with her being evident before he is "supposed to fall in love" wasn't a bad choice per se.
Tom Cruise told me not to name drop. Also she did eat garlic, but so did everyone else. She made a joke about hoping Lazenby ate some as well. NOT that she hated his guts and wanted him to suck her garlic stench in some diabolical scheme.
Diana Riggs has also denied the story and she has had plenty of NASTY things to say about Lazenby.
See here at a 1:55:
Diana Rigg 2011 interview on ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, Garlic and George Lazenby - YouTube
Love Glen to death, but as a 2nd unit director responsible for mostly pickup shots and stunt scenes (and behind the scenes as an editor), he wouldn't have been as close to the actors as Hunt. Why would both Lazenby AND Riggs deny it yet be so brutally honest about everything else?
Glen was most likely referring to the fact that Riggs DID in fact eat garlic that day, and she made the joke, but I still think there is far more evidence the story was overblown, dramatized and mostly fiction.
Last edited:
Oh snap! It's on b****! :lol
I'll mop the floor with ya man!
To be fair I must have misread your first post. I thought you were referring to his smarts from the books. Now:
Let's be realistic here. At no point was Moore's book smarts ever "explored", they wrote him a line or two, always in M's office, of a dictionary description that was used to put forth the information the viewer needed because the script writer was lazy. For instance your example:
Is just plain dumb and lazy screenwriting. Saw TMWTGG on the big screen just a couple weeks ago and the entire theatre groaned. Bond hasn't even been given the mission yet and he knows EVERYTHING about the topic. Lazy and stupid.
I agree with this until you hit Moore. Re: my "groan" comment from earlier.
LEANS toward absurd? Hell man, it takes absurd and runs with it.
So being exposed to it briefly means he knows the full effects it would have?
In 1964 it's actually very impressive knowledge.
Getting it one year off is a genius script writing tool. It shows that he's quickly done the math in his head which makes him smarter than if he had just known the number. And why would he have been briefed on nuclear weapons? None of his missions yet have involved one and they weren't aware that Goldfinger had one yet. Also, at this point the science on the half-life of radiation in circumstances like this wasn't yet in fully. The bomb itself was only created 19 years prior.
That's not an "impressive" line but also remember that in this scene he's still gathering information. Unlike Bonds that follow Connery's early films don't involve him knowing everything because that makes for a lousy spy film. He figures it out. What's really impressive about this scene and others like the laser table is how he manipulates the situation to his advantage to glean information.
Still disagree. Moore just reads the encyclopedia outside of M's office before going in.
Respectfully, nope! :lol
You could take that exact same script and play it the way it should have played. It's the performance that gives it the child having a tantrum feel. A big part of that may be the age difference between M and Bond in this film. When Bond began on the big screen it was always established (even more so in FRWL) that they had a history together. Past missions in Tokyo, etc.
In OHMSS that scene had a feeling of dad scolding his son and the son having a tantrum. Not the relationship they should have and although you can pin part of that on the script it's really the acting that gives it that feel.
"But this is a different actor"
You just outed yourself there! :lol It's the acting that set it apart!
The relationship with M is supposed to already be evolved. They've been on the front lines together so to speak. One would think a decade or more of history there. The actor should portray that.
Nah, this is typical M treatment. And even if it was a bit dickish Bond isnt the type of character to pout. Resign? Sure. Just not like a child.
Great story.
But that wasn't his Bond. If Saltzman had told him to GTFO of his office would Lazenby have stormed out and told his secretary that he's missing out on a guy who would have been awesome so he's going home? No.
Sorry man. I don't see the confidence from that story in his portrayal. Would have been great if it had.
Actually I was referring to the film Bond so let's stick to that. I think you're referring more to the editing than anything else which I'll agree with. Although the most athletic actor to play Bond prior to Craig was Connery hands down. Ex-military, former gigolo, former body builder, Mr. Universe contestant, almost made it as a pro soccer player...
Maybe it wasn't used fully due to the era of film but that man in his prime could kick the ass of every other Bond actor at the same time.
Handsome guy and available doesn't make him suave which leads to...
Agreed. In his Sir Hillary persona we wouldn't expect it. However in other scenes such as with Rigg I don't see it either.
I don't think charming is the right word. Suave magnetism perhaps.
But completely unbelievable for the film character. We build up 5 films showing that Bond has a "take 'em or leave 'em attitude towards women. All of a sudden he falls in love at first sight? You have to build that relationship.
LMAO! Ya... But in all honesty I've met Tom as well. :lol
Maybe it's true maybe it isn't but that's what he said anyway.
Which really means nothing after all the versions I've heard. Lazenby's said it's true before. As I say. Who knows. The real point is that they did NOT get along.
Of course not.
As I said, the point was that they really didn't like eachother. Whether it's true or not is kind of a side point. Let's not get caught up on that.
Personally I think if he had another film I'd be comfortable saying that. However for me it goes:
- Sean Connery
- Daniel Craig
- Timothy Dalton
- George Lazenby
- Roger Moore
- Pierce Brosnan
Those last two flip depending on my mood. As do TD & GL.
Also, TGG I hope you appreciate that I stayed up until 3:30am on a work night to rebuttal! thumbsup
Hope you enjoyed my novel. I'm entering it into the Bond series of books called "A debate between two people who both really like OHMSS". :lol
thumbsupHope you enjoyed my novel. I'm entering it into the Bond series of books called "A debate between two people who both really like OHMSS". :lol
Yes... :confused
And you should! It's a great read but nowhere near as good as YOLT!
Now that I've seen them all on the big screen again in the last two months I've been re-reading all the books as well. Just about to finish up Moonraker.
I'll mop the floor with ya man!
Let's stick to our wits as weapons, shall we? At least in my case, they are sharper.
It happens. I was not.
Wait, are you disagreeing to disagree or do you actually believe this stuff? :lol
By explored I mean developed by developed I mean illustrated. A line or two in M's office is exploring his book smarts, particularly when aside from the butterfly line, it is new to the character.
The audience does not need to know the scientific terms for nipples and fish, the genus of octopus OP had, or that Scaramanga grew up in a circus.
I disagree. See above. Yes Moore does it in M's presence usually and in turn it is usually met with an eye-roll from M. It is part of their relationship in the Moore films.
I would put my money where my mouth is, but money is dirty. Instead, here are some examples:
It vaguely starts in LALD when Bond uses the coffee machine. Sure they are common place, but seeing Bond so deftly whip up a professional espresso is a gag about his foray in high society. Weak example, but its his first film.
I absolutely love the TMWTGG scene. The audience probably groaned because they didn't get it. This Bond is being reinvented as a genius. Moore Bond knows about Scaramanga because he has read his bio and retained it. Why? Who knows. He killed Baines, his friend and colleague, that is a good reason. I get the sense that (film) Bond isn't much for non working holidays.
So instead of saying, "I know who he is," Moore flexes his smarts. And its obviously written that way considering the pause, and the "I think that's it" line. That's it? It's a funny line.
I believe there is more evidence to indicate it was used as comic relief.
Was it also intended to provide information to the audience? Perhaps. But Bond could have said "famed assassin, uses a golden gun and charges a million a bullet." Something tells me the screenwriters didn't NEED to convey he worked in a circus, or half the other stuff about his parents. Aside from the golden bullet, never misses, and million a hit, EVERYTHING ELSE was unnecessary to make the scene funnier.
He also uses the medical term for nipple, again, smart Aleck.
In TSWLM, the battle of wits between Asamova was another example. Not to mention the scene where Stromberg quizzes his knowledge to test his cover as a marine biologist. Stromberg points into the ocean...Bond gulps - tension for the audience, and then Moore proceeds to say "of course, pterois volitans" which is the SCIENTIFIC NAME FOR THE RED LION FISH.
In Moonraker Bond recognizes a "chemical formula for a plant", then the scientific name for the Black Orchid and corrects Q on where it was found. ("Actually he brought it back from the River Tapirapé."
In OP, Bond knows the genus of Octopus off the top of his head.
These are only a handful of examples but there are more. NOT lazy screen writing. More like character development to me.
I think this is a valid opinion. Like I said, I didn't mind it. It fit the Moore Bond, IMO. I wouldn't believe Craig Bond would know this stuff.
No, but he is James Bond. Agents would have been briefed about atomic capabilities.
1964 is WHEN you better know your atomic knowledge!
Cobalt Bombs were tested by the British in the late 50s. This scene was referencing that. We are really arguing about things not scene on screen, so there is no real way to agree or disagree and be correct. I like that scene too, never said I didn't. And yes Connery is smart, never said he wasn't.
Agree, I like that about this scene. Not what I was talking about before, but I agree with this.
Maybe. But so what? Connery doesn't. I am just calling attention to the fact that Moore does.
Perhaps. It is a valid point. Lazenby just is a temperamental *******. Bond might not be anywhere else, but I value that one time we get to see it, if not for just getting to see another interpretation of the character. There are 22 other flicks to choose from.
Every Bond actor had their own take on the character. You are saying you didn't like Lazenby's take. I get that. This is not the first time Bond gets pissed at M. See License to Kill. M can and does push his buttons. As I said, I just think this was that one time Bond's temper ran away from him. Was it wrong for the character? I am not convinced. Bond can be a cold dude.
"Type of character" to pout. Well he did, in this movie.
I tend to believe Lazenby played himself. He was an arrogant, egotistical, temperamental *******. So was his Bond.
Subjective and fair. Marching before Draco and not breaking a sweat, standing up to M, confronting Blofeld, are some examples I would name. You might not agree.
I meant movement. Agile, quick, explosive. Connery sort of fought Captain Kirk style. Punch, push, karate chop to the kidney. :lol
It wasn't used fully.
Subjective and fair. I don't necessarily see Don Juan, but I see a man who deserves the love he inspires from Rigg, and vice versa.
They only had one movie to do it in. That is why I liked that Bond starts his affection early. She is the first Bond girl (aside from Volpe maybe) to be an equal and not portrayed as a dainty flower. She is an atomic bomb of a woman, a lot to handle. She takes over his life and he likes it. She is gorgeous, witty, and he can't win an argument with her. She is as smart if not smarter than he is. She'd risk her life to save his. She isn't just arm candy, she is an adventure. She isn't a singular pursuit. She is a real woman, with emotional layers he can't wait to peel. He feels fulfilled.
Wow just described my wife too.:lol Maybe that is why I just get it. Hell I basically proposed the day I met my wife. Not even kidding.
I also like that Vesper is a lot like Tracy in that way. That scene on the train is magnificent. Bond clearly has a type. He'd bed anything, but his love is saved for this type of woman.
I wasn't there either. :lol They def. had issues, not going to deny that. I agree.
Last edited:
Also, TGG I hope you appreciate that I stayed up until 3:30am on a work night to rebuttal!
Hope you enjoyed my novel. I'm entering it into the Bond series of books called "A debate between two people who both really like OHMSS". :lol
I DO appreciate it. This thread has been a blast.
love
After you respond, throw me some new stuff to argue about Mike! This is too fun! :lol
I have yet to see evidence... :lol (oh snap!)
Now you're starting to sound like Yoda with his "fear, hatred, anger, suffering" garbage. Explored, developed, and illustrated are not linked. The lines you feel show this are the literary equivalent to Moore walking into the room, looking at the camera, and saying "I'm really smart". There is no exploring, there is no development, and "illustrated" is generous.
Yes they do. It's the reason he's a crack shot and they talk about it later in the film.
You keep shooting yourself down. "It is part of their relationship in the Moore films"... Exactly. If we're holding the Moore films up as the example you and I have a much bigger issue to debate...
The audience didn't groan because they didn't get it. Trust me, the only people at these screenings are the die hards. If you think it was funny then power to you but I think that compared to actual development in previous films it's mere exposition and cheapens the character.
Which we needed in that scene why? Moore turned the films into comedies. They should not be comedies.
Scene didn't need to be funny nor should it have been. We are at an impasse...
Doesn't come across as smart aleck. Comes across as pompous tart. Not Bond. Might be Moore's Bond but as I said earlier, if that's the standard you're playing to you've got bigger issues.
Which in this case he would have been fully briefed for his cover. Any of the Bond's would have. Makes sense here.
Snipped a bit there for brevity in my novel. :lol
Still think it's lazy screen writing but I see what you're getting at. I see no DEVELOPMENT of character, just hitting the beats as Cubby used to say. "We need an action scene, now Bond should say something funny, we need a gadget scene, now Bond should say something ridiculously smart that defies how he is portrayed in the rest of the film, now another gadget, etc..."
Yours is certainly a valid opinion as well but I think what we've delved into here is a fundamental disagreement of who Bond is and should be. "It fit the Moore Bond" as you say doesn't hold any weight to me because Moore didn't fit Bond.
And I'm calling attention to the fact that the way they portray it in Moore's tenure is absurd. That's all.
Never once said I didn't like Lazenby's take, as a matter of fact if you look back to chapter three of my massive novel here you'll see that I DO like him as Bond. OHMSS if one of my favourite Bond films. Just that in certain dramatic scenes he misses the mark. Nothing wrong with that.
M certainly is able to push his buttons and LTK is a great example of how you could play a very similar scene with a less childish tone.
He did in this movie yes. Which was OUT OF CHARACTER. That's what doesn't work.
I see what you mean. But the story you gave didn't have the tempermental aspect. If it had been toned down he would have nailed the character but in the end as has been said before he just wasn't that good an actor yet.
Standing up to M? You mean crying and going home? :lol
Might want to watch OHMSS again. A lot of Captain Kirk going on there, the fight on the beach at the beginning always looked a little sloppy to me (actually like that, makes it more realistic).
I'll agree with that.
I'd argue that but I do see your point. He needs to be Don Juan though... :love
Not a dainty flower? She's attempting suicide in the most hippie way possible in the first scene! :lol
First since Volpe? No love for Ms. Galore? Paula holds her own against torture in TB as well... Far from the first.
And here's where I discover the rose coloured glasses that you see this through. You sir, are not James Bond. :lol
In CR they did it differently and I thought, better. They build that relationship, it certainly wasn't love at first sight but he respected her and was interested. It grew from there. Much more in character for both novel and film Bond.
I DO appreciate it. This thread has been a blast.
Most fun debating I've had in ages! :thumbsup
At work (shouldn't have typed that last novel but couldn't help it) so we'll resume later. I think we've just about beat that last topic to death.
Agree to disagree (but not really 'cause I'm realizing we actually agree with everything but have different stances on it)
See above. :lol
Semantics. Moore's Bond was a know-it-all, that is what I was trying to convey. Call it what you like.
I don't see that as shooting myself down. Moore was a know-it-all in M's company to M's disdain. I am only holding the Moore films as an example of the Moore films :lol
Well they either 1. Didn't get it or 2. Didn't find it funny. It was intended to be funny. Maybe not slap your knee funny, but it was a gag dude.
And I am the one shooting myself down? Yes it was a comedic thing. Are we debating here or just saying the same thing in different ways? :lol
Agree as far as I said I didn't mind it. Your argument that it didn't need to be funny is different than when you said it wasn't meant to be funny. :lol Granted I never said I loved it either. I said it fit the Moore Bond. Personally, I too find it a little hard to believe Bond would know what a Red Lion fish's scientific name would be, but I didn't mind that side of his character. As you later say, maybe he memorized a few of the indigenous fish. Maybe that list wasn't too long in that area.
Smart Aleck's and Pompous tarts are often bedfellows. Again semantics.
I merely judged Moore by Moore's standards, nothing more.
See above. I didn't mind it.
Again, development is a word I chose to convey the thought that Moore Bond was illustrating a part of his personality not before witnessed. If he all of a sudden hated heights, I would call that the same thing.
The Moore films are sometimes silly and campy, a function of the times. I still love them though.
I love all Bond, all the time. To me, Bond is who is in every film. I said it before, I like what each person brought to their roles. I am weird in that I never took sides. To me, my enjoyment of the films isn't this Bond vs. that Bond, I like em all. And within each Actor's movies, I have my favorites:
Connery: GF
Moore: LALD
Dalton: TLD
Brosnan: GE
Craig: SF
Never really disagreed. I'd prefer Bond to be less silly too. I kind of ignore the silly parts. Like California Girls playing in AVTAK, etc.
No, nothing wrong with that.:thumbsup
Lazenby could have played it differently, but didn't. I don't mind it. This is a friendly impasse. :thumbsup
See above. A valid opinion, just not my own. :thumbsup
:lol
Mike, I have every scene memorized. If I watched these movies any more times, my head would pop. Which scene do you want retyped from memory?
The fight scenes def. involved the camera more, stylistically. That could lend itself to what I am saying about being explosive too. Hunt gives the camera a lot of motion during the scenes. I can see why some people might call it sloppy, but it was intentional. Very Bourne before Bourne actually.
And I think we are at an impasse about Kirk and Connery obviously having the same trainer. :lol :thumbsup KIDNEY CHOP!
:sick :lol
That's pretty balzy don't you think? And I hope you know what I mean. Compare her to the demeanor of sweet voiced Domino. (Who's voice is nearly every Connery Bond girl :lol)
I considered Galore, but she was on the other team for most of the film man, albeit subtly for the times. Maybe Bond would have had a chance to develop his feelings more if she wasn't so damn immune to his charm. Even though they seem to get physical in the final scene, and she gives him a try, she was gay. ("I must have appealed to her...maternal instincts")
But she was a Bond girl, so generally, yes, she was no dainty flower. I was referring to love interests.
Paula popping a pill was balzy too, but she was no Tracy. Oh and the fact that they NEVER slept together on screen, nor were shown romantically linked beside her crossed look at Volpe in the room, is another reason why she is a terrible example :lol
In what department? :cool
Impasse. I thought OHMSS did the same thing effectively as well. They were very similar in execution actually. In OHMSS a LOT more stuff was going on than just a card game, so I appreciated the movie not being four hours long. :lol
Last edited:
Agreed. :lol
I will let you have the final word with a response, but I am picking a new fight, so get ready. :lol
Solo4114
Master Member
One of the big splits in Bond fans is people who prefer the literary version (a killer, ruthless, more emotional while trying to be cold, knowledge of "the good life" but not a walking encyclopedia) and those who prefer the cinematic version (a quipper, lots of gadgets, suave, sophisticated, knows a lot about a lot, nonchalant in most cases, etc.).
Personally, I far prefer literary Bond, which is why I find the sillier and more over-the-top entries to be frustrating to watch. Granted, even at their worst, they're still kinda fun in their own way, but to me, the franchise is at its absolute best in films like Dr. No, FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, and CR (and most recently Skyfall). Those films, to me, are SO much better than the sillier/campier/over-the-top entries that they end up ultimately undermining what are otherwise entertaining romps with a few really bad puns and some neat if implausible gadgets.
I've noticed that, with the actors who had longer runs in the role, the tendency was to start with a cracking good performance, and end with a particularly bad one where they'd clearly outlived the role and were being used largely for box-office draw from the name, and because the producers either couldn't secure a better new lead, or were too scared to roll the dice on one.
Personally, I far prefer literary Bond, which is why I find the sillier and more over-the-top entries to be frustrating to watch. Granted, even at their worst, they're still kinda fun in their own way, but to me, the franchise is at its absolute best in films like Dr. No, FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, and CR (and most recently Skyfall). Those films, to me, are SO much better than the sillier/campier/over-the-top entries that they end up ultimately undermining what are otherwise entertaining romps with a few really bad puns and some neat if implausible gadgets.
I've noticed that, with the actors who had longer runs in the role, the tendency was to start with a cracking good performance, and end with a particularly bad one where they'd clearly outlived the role and were being used largely for box-office draw from the name, and because the producers either couldn't secure a better new lead, or were too scared to roll the dice on one.
I def. agree. I somewhat transcend the rigid categories as I prefer the more serious flicks, but I appreciate the lighter Bond films as well for their own special place in my heart.
Agree as well. I still like all the movies, as you say they are fun, but my favorites fall along these lines too.
So true. Its not a perfect system, but its almost as if the movies under each actor get progressively worse little by little. The exceptions for me are OP, which I generally enjoy a lot, and GF coming a hair before FRWL - mainly because of Q being introduced as his prickly self.
Similar threads
