Which Bond are you most protective of?
#1
Posted 18 August 2008 - 03:53 AM
My pet Bond movie is For Your Eyes Only. I think most people here like it, but there are some who feel it's boring and doesn't have great villains but I always step in to protect its honour.
Do you have a "pet" Bond movie, or actor, or even director/score writer that you always protect??
#2
Posted 18 August 2008 - 04:47 AM
#3
Posted 18 August 2008 - 04:47 AM
I think that I feel the most "protective" of Goldeneye. Despite its flaws, it has always carried a special place in the heart of my Bond fandom. It was my first on the big screen(a fact I've shared so many times on here that I actually feel the obligation to apologize for saying it yet again ) and it was really the only time that I think I believed Brosnan as an assassin/spy. I often find myself coming to GE's rescue, and for crying out loud, I still rank it as #5 on my list. As absurd as I'm sure many of you find this, I can't help loving it.
With actors, I find myself stepping to bat for Dalton far more often than he necessitates (anyone who considers his acting bad just doesn't know what the process of acting is about, IMO; He's a gifted man that any young actor should be honored to be compared with) and I will continue to defend Laz, at least to the degree of saying that he'd have definitely matured into a terrific Bond had he stayed on and received more training. He had terrific moments here and there, whether they were Hunt's products or his own.
Finally, I've begun to defend Eric Serra more often as of late. I really wonder what might have happened had he had a second crack. While his car racing music is pure 90s fromage, his "Goldeneye Overture" (PTS music) is really innovative with its timpani-arranged Bond guitar riff.
#4
Posted 18 August 2008 - 05:43 AM
I think that I feel the most "protective" of Goldeneye. Despite its flaws, it has always carried a special place in the heart of my Bond fandom. It was my first on the big screen(a fact I've shared so many times on here that I actually feel the obligation to apologize for saying it yet again ) and it was really the only time that I think I believed Brosnan as an assassin/spy. I often find myself coming to GE's rescue, and for crying out loud, I still rank it as #5 on my list. As absurd as I'm sure many of you find this, I can't help loving it.
That makes perfect sense to me, 00Twelve. It was many people's first Bond on the big screen, and it was my 2nd official Bond seen in the cinema. I think people always love the first one they saw.
I love it too, and will always defend that one, TND and the PTS from TWINE.
#5
Posted 18 August 2008 - 07:56 AM
The Bond I am most protective of is Roger, he was a great Bond IMO, but again criticism that he is not "Fleming's" Bond and too comedic, I take this on board, but think he was great for the time, and his movies always rate up there as top entertainment for me.
#6
Posted 18 August 2008 - 08:59 AM
TWINE. I honestly like this film. Misuse like the character of Renard's caliber (he's faster, doesn't feel pain and grows stronger until the day he dies) doesn't discourage me of liking it. At least they didn't go over the top with him. We all should know who the real villain is.
No, not Apted, not the producers, not Pierce and not particularly the screenwriters.
Think about it.
But I'm sure as heck is a hot place to buy your estate from, that there are many many many wonderful people here who'd love to disagree with me.
#7
Posted 18 August 2008 - 09:10 AM
#8
Posted 18 August 2008 - 09:11 AM
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, a very underrated Bond movie.
#9
Posted 18 August 2008 - 09:18 AM
My pet movie is AVTAK. Maybe Moore is too old for it, but the whole story and the agony at some scenes(Bond and Sir Godfrey Tibbet searching in thew stables) and Moore's humour makes it special. It makes me have a good time when I watch it.
#10
Posted 18 August 2008 - 10:02 AM
#11
Posted 18 August 2008 - 01:38 PM
Then I remind them of all the great actors who have played popular characters in just a handful of movies, the most relevant now being Bale as Batman (two times) and Heath Ledger as Joker (once, and that'll never change ).
I was also protective of Craig before CR came out, but even though I still defend him from the occasional buffoon who thinks Bond has always been a harmless and bad pun-cracking mannequin, he's become so wildly popular that I normally don't have to bother.
On the other hand, I usually take it upon myself to knock the other actors off their pedestals, even if I like them, because I can't stand blind worship. I do this by pointing out Connery turned in some embarrassing performances (primarily DAF), and that it's fortunate he did most of his movies in rapid-fire succession during his prime.
With Brosnan, I just tell people he was too melodramatic in TWINE and wasn't convincing enough at portraying the harder side of Bond. Then again, I often end up defending the guy, who I actually did enjoy as Bond. It seems opinion on him is still polarized.
For Moore, I just laugh and say we're obviously looking for very different things in Bond.
#12
Posted 18 August 2008 - 10:25 PM
#13
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:34 AM
I always took it a bit personal that he quit/was fired from the role, especially when GE came out and everybody jumped on the bandwagon blaming him for the 6-year gap and praising Bros for bringing the series back. I don't disagree Bros helped make the series popular again, but he just didn't make much of an impression for me, personally.
Now with Craig in the role, I'm starting to see others beginning to appreciate Dalton's Bond a little more. He's no Connery, but I am always drawn to the man whenever I watch TLD or LTK.
It was a blessing and a curse for Dalton to get the role in '86. It was at a time when the series was going through a tough stretch and his not getting to do more films is a great "what if" for me.
#14
Posted 19 August 2008 - 03:29 AM
#15
Posted 19 August 2008 - 09:59 AM
Definitely Laz for me. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Con had his six, Laz had his one--and one was all he needed. Straight to the heart. OHMSS holds the fountain of youth and will keep the bounce in a man's step. It helps put the bounce back into bed springs as well for those aren't ready to doze off alone. Watch it often, watch it well, and above all protect it from those too gone to get it.
But isn't it more a case of OHMSS making Lazenby look good than Lazenby actually adding anythingt to OHMSS?
#16
Posted 19 August 2008 - 10:28 AM
In "real life", I'd say I'm most protective of OHMSS. I don't think that protective is even the good word for that, since the average audience doesn't care attacking OHMSS, since it doesn't know it exists... Not that I'm a huge fan of this movie, but well, it deserves a bit more attention than what it gets.
#17
Posted 19 August 2008 - 11:33 AM
In the real world, I defend Lazenby and OHMSS and Timothy Dalton's brace of Bonds to the hilt. Interestingly, I find I don't have to defend Roger Moore as much as I once did; old Rog seems to have become something of a national treasure latterly.
Definitely Laz for me. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Con had his six, Laz had his one--and one was all he needed. Straight to the heart. OHMSS holds the fountain of youth and will keep the bounce in a man's step. It helps put the bounce back into bed springs as well for those aren't ready to doze off alone. Watch it often, watch it well, and above all protect it from those too gone to get it.
But isn't it more a case of OHMSS making Lazenby look good than Lazenby actually adding anythingt to OHMSS?
I have to disagree. Lazenby's youth and relative inexperience fitted that script perfectly and is, for me, the very reason it worked. People often say that OHMSS would have been a better film had Connery done it. I disagree; I believe Connery's world-weariness, not to mention his boredom with the role, would have detracted from the film considerably. For me, OHMSS works because of Lazenby, not in spite of him.
Definitely Laz for me. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Con had his six, Laz had his one--and one was all he needed. Straight to the heart. OHMSS holds the fountain of youth and will keep the bounce in a man's step. It helps put the bounce back into bed springs as well for those aren't ready to doze off alone. Watch it often, watch it well, and above all protect it from those too gone to get it.
Agreed. Better yet, it is PURE Fleming, more so even than FRWL.
#18
Posted 19 August 2008 - 01:57 PM
On here, I'm most protective of Pierce Brosnan. He's not my favourite Bond, but he's a much better actor than some CBn-ers will allow and the franchise owes him more than they can bring themselves to admit. And I simply do not understand why some fans seem to think that to embrace Craig, one has to dump on Brosnan.
In the real world, I defend Lazenby and OHMSS and Timothy Dalton's brace of Bonds to the hilt. Interestingly, I find I don't have to defend Roger Moore as much as I once did; old Rog seems to have become something of a national treasure latterly.Definitely Laz for me. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Con had his six, Laz had his one--and one was all he needed. Straight to the heart. OHMSS holds the fountain of youth and will keep the bounce in a man's step. It helps put the bounce back into bed springs as well for those aren't ready to doze off alone. Watch it often, watch it well, and above all protect it from those too gone to get it.
But isn't it more a case of OHMSS making Lazenby look good than Lazenby actually adding anythingt to OHMSS?
I have to disagree. Lazenby's youth and relative inexperience fitted that script perfectly and is, for me, the very reason it worked. People often say that OHMSS would have been a better film had Connery done it. I disagree; I believe Connery's world-weariness, not to mention his boredom with the role, would have detracted from the film considerably. For me, OHMSS works because of Lazenby, not in spite of him.Definitely Laz for me. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Con had his six, Laz had his one--and one was all he needed. Straight to the heart. OHMSS holds the fountain of youth and will keep the bounce in a man's step. It helps put the bounce back into bed springs as well for those aren't ready to doze off alone. Watch it often, watch it well, and above all protect it from those too gone to get it.
Agreed. Better yet, it is PURE Fleming, more so even than FRWL.
Bingo, imo.
#19
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:09 PM
Definitely Laz for me. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Con had his six, Laz had his one--and one was all he needed. Straight to the heart. OHMSS holds the fountain of youth and will keep the bounce in a man's step. It helps put the bounce back into bed springs as well for those aren't ready to doze off alone. Watch it often, watch it well, and above all protect it from those too gone to get it.
But isn't it more a case of OHMSS making Lazenby look good than Lazenby actually adding anythingt to OHMSS?
I have to disagree. Lazenby's youth and relative inexperience fitted that script perfectly and is, for me, the very reason it worked. People often say that OHMSS would have been a better film had Connery done it. I disagree; I believe Connery's world-weariness, not to mention his boredom with the role, would have detracted from the film considerably. For me, OHMSS works because of Lazenby, not in spite of him.
I guess I tend to agree with that. The film might have worked with a Connery circa Dr No, but wouldn't have been anything near the same with YOLT or [shudder] DAF Connery.
Lazenby is a bit of a conundrum here - he does add that genuineness that Craig now has in the role, but is also a pretty poor actor. Luckily the poor acting doesn't show too badly, to some extent thanks to a voice over.
I'm torn on this one.
I can't dislike the bugger, but I can't get myself to accept that he's the best choice for the part (Moore or Brosnan certainly wouldn't have been either). Craig or Dalton would probably have done best in OHMSS (or Connery at his youngest as Bond).
#20
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:18 PM
I guess… LALD? Seems to be a ‘meh’ film for many, where I find it to be Roger’s most entertaining. Once you’ve exhausted the great Connery films and tossed in OHMSS and CR, there’s LALD just waiting to claim glory in the #6 spot overall. And if you do your math correctly, you’ll have noticed that the said ‘great Connery films’ amount to only three in number. Which, assuming the exclusion of YOLT and DAF, means that LALD is beating out one of the first four films. I admit that that is not always an easy decision for me to make.
#21
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:20 PM
#22
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:38 PM
Films I'm most protective of: Dr. No, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, LTK, TWINE. Also TLD to a certain extent.
#23
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:38 PM
With the movies, its probably Moonraker. For as long as I can remember, it's been my all time second fave and I wonder if it will ever be moved from that position.
Moonraker gets its fair share of bashing for the comedy and space elements, but for me it's really a quite sinister Bond film underneath it all. Hugo Drax is your soft-spoken, but brooding villain, you have fantastic scenes such as the death of Corrine and revealing of the space station and a pitch-perfect score by John Barry.
I love that movie.
#24
Posted 19 August 2008 - 03:09 PM
I think there is a tendancy for the public at large and critics to jump on bandwagons a bit about slagging off Bond actors, when they don't really know what they are on about. I'm always armed and ready with reasons for why each actor was/is good in the role, although Connery needs the least protection on that score.
Richard Maibaum was a genius script writer, whose influence is often overlooked.
#25
Posted 19 August 2008 - 03:18 PM
Don't have a particular Bond actor I'm protective of, because I don't think any of their performances really need a whole lot of protection. Everyone is going to have their favourite and least favourite.
With the movies, its probably Moonraker. For as long as I can remember, it's been my all time second fave and I wonder if it will ever be moved from that position.
Moonraker gets its fair share of bashing for the comedy and space elements, but for me it's really a quite sinister Bond film underneath it all. Hugo Drax is your soft-spoken, but brooding villain, you have fantastic scenes such as the death of Corrine and revealing of the space station and a pitch-perfect score by John Barry.
I love that movie.
Totally agree - MOONRAKER will always get my full support. Believe it or not, but I always buy into the space stuff. Yes, even the guys floating around shooting lasers.
On the other hand I grab the occasional opportunity to take some shots at TSWLM, which I think is a tad over-rated.
#26
Posted 19 August 2008 - 03:21 PM
As far as movies go - OHMSS without question.
#27
Posted 19 August 2008 - 04:12 PM
Don't have a particular Bond actor I'm protective of, because I don't think any of their performances really need a whole lot of protection. Everyone is going to have their favourite and least favourite.
With the movies, its probably Moonraker. For as long as I can remember, it's been my all time second fave and I wonder if it will ever be moved from that position.
Moonraker gets its fair share of bashing for the comedy and space elements, but for me it's really a quite sinister Bond film underneath it all. Hugo Drax is your soft-spoken, but brooding villain, you have fantastic scenes such as the death of Corrine and revealing of the space station and a pitch-perfect score by John Barry.
I love that movie.
You just summarized the reasons why I love this movie. It's Moore's best, and one of my favortie movies in the series. Moore's 2nd best movie is 'LALD', I think.
The thing with Moore's films is, that if we inspect each and every Bond movie he's done, they're all bit different. You have the first movie, that is nothing like the first 6 movies in the series. You get the, generally regarded light hearted Bond, and you get the Moore serious and should I say cruel Bond. We get the Bond that takes situations seriously, and we get the eyebrow-raising Bond, interpretation of character from which he's most known for. 7 very different movies. IMO.
#28
Posted 19 August 2008 - 04:22 PM
Don't have a particular Bond actor I'm protective of, because I don't think any of their performances really need a whole lot of protection. Everyone is going to have their favourite and least favourite.
With the movies, its probably Moonraker. For as long as I can remember, it's been my all time second fave and I wonder if it will ever be moved from that position.
Moonraker gets its fair share of bashing for the comedy and space elements, but for me it's really a quite sinister Bond film underneath it all. Hugo Drax is your soft-spoken, but brooding villain, you have fantastic scenes such as the death of Corrine and revealing of the space station and a pitch-perfect score by John Barry.
I love that movie.
Very true. To be fair, Moonraker went too far on occasions, but I submit that its positives far outweigh its negatives.
I also have to say that I support TWINE, which I find gets inexplicably trashed on here, though that isn't the case in the real world. Last Saturday, for instance, it was shown in the UK and, again, was awarded 4 stars out of 5 by the Radio Times (the UK's leading listing magazine). The RT gives all the Brosnan Bonds 4 stars, as it does the first three, LALD and CR. Most, including Thunderball get a 3, although YOLT is the only Bond to be awarded 5 out of 5...
#29
Posted 19 August 2008 - 04:56 PM
Bang on Couldn't agree moreDon't have a particular Bond actor I'm protective of, because I don't think any of their performances really need a whole lot of protection. Everyone is going to have their favourite and least favourite.
With the movies, its probably Moonraker. For as long as I can remember, it's been my all time second fave and I wonder if it will ever be moved from that position.
Moonraker gets its fair share of bashing for the comedy and space elements, but for me it's really a quite sinister Bond film underneath it all. Hugo Drax is your soft-spoken, but brooding villain, you have fantastic scenes such as the death of Corrine and revealing of the space station and a pitch-perfect score by John Barry.
I love that movie.
Are there certain movies/actors that just don't need protecting. As they don't really get that much stick in the first place.
Sean Connery, I guess would be the actor
And of the films you could say FRWL, OHMSS and CR don't need protecting as they do not get really slated, What do you think ?
#30
Posted 19 August 2008 - 05:00 PM
I, too, love Moonraker. It’s like a meandering summer drive along the gorgeous coastline of northern California, albeit on a road littered with nasty potholes. Some people lose concentration of the many visual splendors at each jarring bump, and conclude that the whole trip was a waste. Others, however, deal with the bumps, keeping their senses locked on the better things, and conclude with a recharged spirit that the trip was a pleasant adventure. Of course they wish Governor Schwarzenegger would just fix the blasted thing – it’s not as if they like whacking the out of their shocks like a LeChiffre Speciale to Bond’s nards - but the bumpy ride is nothing to tarnish the memory.
The reason why I didn’t claim Moonraker as an object of my defense, is because I have to agree with the criticisms leveled at it. It’s campy. Campy, campy, campy. In many places. There’s no denying it or defending it. It’s just a matter of whether those campy elements infect the whole film, which is otherwise a great and beautiful adventure.