Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

3rd film vs 2nd film assessment


19 replies to this topic

#1 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 17 October 2014 - 11:45 PM

I wandered off topic on the Missed Opportunites thread with something that I indulgently thought deserved its own place.  Time will tell if that proves to be the case...

 

Everyone harps on about the 3rd film Brilliance. For my part, I prefer the mix up of the second film problems that perhaps inadvertantly deliver an edgier film.

 

I prefer;

 

FRWL for its spy motif

Gg for its slapdash approach but sprightly allure

LTK for some 'ahead of its time' hardness

TND for, again, a sprightly allure and a straight spy story that was happily lite on the 'it's personal' approach.

QoS for a Bond that, surely no one can deny, is utterly hard and business-like. Even M was more, 'He's my agent and I trust him', than 'Wot's going on - report.'

 

By contrast;

 

Gf has Bond doing next to nothing meaningful for the better half of an entire film

Spy is a bit flat and flabby, PTS notwithstanding

Daltons's 3rd never happend - 'nuff said

TWINE is universally ranked as the world's most boring film, like, ever.

SF is a bit motherly and plodding, except for any scene involving Berenice.

 

When people write in threads asking what one wishes of the next Bond incarnation, my response is, 'Their second film.'



#2 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 18 October 2014 - 02:53 AM

It's an interesting theory. While I love FRWL and QoS, I'm nostalgic about GG rather than affectionate (!). I have little time for TND (it feels too by-the-numbers-checklist for me), I'm not sure if I really buy into the "2nd film" theory.

That said, I do agree on the "3rd film" part (and that's spoken as long-time TWINE sympathizer/defendant!). 3rds, rather than being hailed as the "best" of an tenure as they universally are, perhaps should be referred to as the most "comfortable" of a tenure. Most (with the exception of TWINE - which I'll get to shortly) demonstrate signs of everyone settling down into a groove. The leading man is at his most self-assured, the team around him know exactly how to play to his strengths. There's no such thing as true "surprise" (though SF gave it a shot) and it's all a bit like putting on your favorite pair of shoes or article of clothing.

As for TWINE, I actually think they did try something a little different, definitely different than the film that preceded it. I'll concede that the fault was in the execution rather than the inspiration. To be fair, it would have been all too easy to have served up TND redux, and to EON's credit, they didn't.

So while I don't completely agree that 2nds are what people are looking for in their next Bond incarnation, I will say that 3rds tend to be a safe serving of "this is what you'll like" rather than a "this is what you might like to try if you're feeling adventurous."

If you follow me.........

#3 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 18 October 2014 - 09:00 AM

Yeah! I totaly agree with you. And than you've got the fourth movie, which is the " bigger better/Bond and beyond" one: Thunderball, Moonraker, Die another day.

Let's see and wait for Craig's fourth Bondmovie!



#4 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 18 October 2014 - 04:16 PM

I think it's an interesting observation and one I personally agree with.

 

My feelings are GF and SF are somewhat overrated, TSWLM is YOLT for the '70s, TWINE is indeed the most boring film in the series.

 

I like the chance-taking these second films represent, aside from TND, which I enjoy a lot despite it also being a YOLT variation, being different from the predecessors.



#5 Walecs

Walecs

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Italy

Posted 18 October 2014 - 08:43 PM

TWINE as the most boring movie of all time? I might understand as the most boring among Bond movies, but of all time? Not even close. On 100 movies that get released every year, I bet that at least 75 of them are more boring than TWINE.



#6 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 18 October 2014 - 10:42 PM

Yeah, I know fella.

 

I was merely making a story up to illustrate a point.  It was not meant to be regarded as 'veracity incarnate'.  But, if we accept there is no such thing as the one standard, and that if something holds itself to a higher plane of critical standard then, by contrast, the negative reaction should equally be concentrated.

 

(Although now you're arguing against the initial point, I am wondering if in fact my otherwise illustrative and irrational statement has merit - the film IS the most boring ever??) 

 

((Your English is very good, by the way - in reference to your signature))



#7 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 18 October 2014 - 11:47 PM

TWINE is more boring than MOONRAKER and A VIEW TO A KILL?

Tanya Roberts makes Denise Richards seem like she has Dame Judi's acting ability.

Jaws was reduced to a clown in MOONRAKER

I'm a life long fan but I almost walked out of A VIEW TO A KILL during its initial theater release.

PB demonstrated almost a Sir Sean ruthlessness during the PTS and his final confrontation with Electra "I never miss"  BANG!  in TWINE.

Sir Roger demonstrated that he could actually act during the hotel scenes with Anya in SWLM.

As for Sir Sean in GOLDFINGER- why is the movie still considered the blueprint for every 007 movie made since?



#8 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 19 October 2014 - 06:58 AM

Reminds me of the old Star Trek movie "odd number even number" theory. Star Treks 1,3,5 etc were not up to scratch whereas 2,4,6 were, or so it was claimed. I'm not sure that was always the case.

 

FRWL was a solid choice for Connery's second film, and for a good reason besides being one of the best of the novels. A film of the book which was number nine on the top ten reads list of President Kennedy would help in breaking into the US film market.

 

TMWTGG - very good villain in Christopher Lee's Scaramanga, and I enjoyed it at the time, but it doesn't improve with age for me. It has one plus over its two successors though - it was funny in parts but avoided the "musical" gags used in TSWLM & MR. Someone should have taken the production team of TSWLM aside at the preview and said "We know Bond's lost in the desert - there's no need to play the theme from 'Lawrence Of Arabia' "

 

LTK - again a very good villain, in my view the best of the eighties Bond films. Ahead of its time in the much harder edge, even though of its time with the drug dealing theme. It's a pity about the writers strike though - it might have benefited from a re-write in parts. To me, at times, Timothy Dalton didn't look comfortable with the lines he delivered.

 

TND - an excellent idea - a media tycoon trying to manipulate world events to boost ratings - which got a bit muddled. As I recall they were still re-writing the script when filming started. If you read Raymond Benson's book of the film you can see what was intended - small scale wars which look good on TV making Carver a fortune. Instead we got the usual tale of Bond preventing an (unlikely) nuclear confrontation between Britain and China which Carver triggered to allow him to take over Chinese TV (!) Putting your audience at risk of nuclear annihilation is not the best way of boosting TV ratings, I think!

 

QoS - this film does improve the more I watch it. True, it does seem like CR Part II at times, and I sill find the "shaky cam"  direction approach a bit irritating. But it has a storyline which I now realise is more plausible than most, though I would have liked to have seen more of what Quantum was planning for the rest of the world's resources.



#9 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 19 October 2014 - 07:23 AM

My problem with TMWTGG is one line:

"I've never shot a midget before."



#10 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 19 October 2014 - 03:20 PM

I'd say that the general rule is that each actor's second film is generally his best, with one glaring exception.  From Russia With Love, Licence to Kill, and Quantum of Solace are among the franchise's very best, and each represent both a step up from their already great predecessors.  Tomorrow Never Dies is a film that is a terrific concept and is, by the Brosnan era standards, fairly well executed, but falters in a few areas.  Generally, though, I'd put it at least on par with GoldenEye.

 

The real glaring exception is The Man with the Golden Gun.  It's awful.  Just awful.  It even manages to be a step down from the already subpar Live and Let Die.



#11 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 19 October 2014 - 03:49 PM

One thing you can say about every actors' first film effort:

 

They are intended to be crowd-pleasers as well as fan-pleasers, and in that they never fail (not even LALD).



#12 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 19 October 2014 - 04:03 PM

I don't know, was CR intended as a crowd pleaser? It was a real departure in several ways that may have backfired. That could've easily gone for the spectacle and wall-to-wall action instead of focusing on a more personal side and a complete reboot. I'd never seen so many negative preconceived ideas beforehand.

 

So that's the one in the firsts that had the biggest uphill challenge, although GE also had its share of obstacles but had the advantage of a more audience-friendly approach as well as a well known leading man inheriting the role he was meant to play.



#13 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 19 October 2014 - 04:31 PM

My problem with TMWTGG is one line:
"I've never shot a midget before."


Inaccurate? Offensive?

#14 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 19 October 2014 - 11:00 PM

I agree with Turn. CR 2006 was a gamble - appropriate, if you think about it. They could have gone for business as usual, and in some ways did, but they also played to the strengths of the new leading man and it worked, brilliantly.



#15 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 20 October 2014 - 07:02 PM

One thing you can say about every actors' first film effort:
 
They are intended to be crowd-pleasers as well as fan-pleasers, and in that they never fail (not even LALD).

 
OHMSS? A crowd and fan pleaser? :blink:  :wacko: 
 
More likely the first film is "let's do something different."



#16 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 20 October 2014 - 07:24 PM

Indeed.

 

I think the only legitimate box-ticking crowd pleaser was probably GoldenEye.



#17 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 20 October 2014 - 10:41 PM

Good point made by Simon. GoldenEye had to be a crowd pleaser - the crowd had nothing to watch for six years.  The Brosnan era gets some stick but by re-establishing Bond on screen and raking in the moolah it paved the way for what we have now. A series that could suddenly afford to take a risk, and when Brosnan stood down, did.

 

And I liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond - I didn't expect to but I did. His heart was in the right place about the role, I think, and he managed to mix some of the strengths of his predecessors with few vices, and a bit of Irish charm and irony.



#18 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 21 October 2014 - 02:50 AM

 

One thing you can say about every actors' first film effort:
 
They are intended to be crowd-pleasers as well as fan-pleasers, and in that they never fail (not even LALD).

 
OHMSS? A crowd and fan pleaser? :blink:  :wacko: 
 
More likely the first film is "let's do something different."

 

Note I said "intended to be".

 

Granted I also said they never fail. Some just take longer than others.

 

As someone pointed out in another, similar thread, it's the last film in each actor's tenure that tends to disappoint.



#19 Sharpe

Sharpe

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 63 posts
  • Location:In the Aston

Posted 21 October 2014 - 03:52 AM

I'd say if anything, the first film for each actor is generally awesome, with the seconds being hit and miss, and the thirds often being quite good 'classic' bond films.

 

Dr No

OHMSS

LALD

Living Daylights

Goldeneye

Casino Royale

 

All of them are so high on my list of best bond films; CR, GE, LD, OHMSS especially! But LALD and Dr No are certainly way up there.

 

FRWL

MWTGG

LTK

TND

QoS

 

With the exception of FRWL, those rank very near the bottom of the bond films for me...

 

GF

TSWLM

TWINE

Skyfall

 

With the exception of TWINE, they're "classic" full-on Bondishness. I enjoy them quite a lot, though not quite as much as the 'first films'.

 

Overall, with a couple exceptions mentioned above, i'd say first film > third film > second film.



#20 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 12:11 AM

 

 

One thing you can say about every actors' first film effort:
 
They are intended to be crowd-pleasers as well as fan-pleasers, and in that they never fail (not even LALD).

 
OHMSS? A crowd and fan pleaser? :blink:  :wacko: 
 
More likely the first film is "let's do something different."

 

Note I said "intended to be".

 

Granted I also said they never fail. Some just take longer than others.

 

As someone pointed out in another, similar thread, it's the last film in each actor's tenure that tends to disappoint.

 

 

Oh absolutely! No two ways about it. Lazenby's last film in his tenure was an overrated disappointment. Funny, not only was it his last, but it was also his...