Jump to content


Member Since 09 Feb 2005
Offline Last Active Apr 26 2017 03:17 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Juicy report from Dr. Shatterhand!

20 April 2017 - 03:29 PM

I agree that fans were more concerned to get Brosnan back compared to what we see now with Craig. But I don't think that's any indication that Brosnan was more popular as Bond...


A difference between today and 2005 is that maybe a larger portion of the fan community have already experienced a shift in lead actor. Maybe that wasn't as common back in 2005, mainly due to the six year gap between LTK and GE and all the new fans that Brosnan brought to the series. In addition, back in 2004/2005 a "successful" Bond actor did 6-7 films. Period. This is what everyone was expecting from Brosnan, but now we have gotten more used to the idea that four films may be "enough" for an era.


Also with Brosnan there were always some frustation that he never got what he deserved. With DAD so messed up it just seemed natural for Brosnan to get a more down-to-earth picture á la FYEO.


Personally, I think they should do 1 or maybe 2-3 films more with Craig. A formula were each actor does four films is simply too predictable and not good for the series.

In Topic: Favorite Roger Moore James Bond Film

29 March 2017 - 04:56 PM

So much of this movie feels like just going through the motions, from "let's get Roger again" to "let's find another variation on Oddjob" to "let's borrow the villain's plot from 'Goldfinger'" to "hey, it worked last time to hang Bond from a plane, this time let's make it a blimp."  There is no life or spark to AVTAK, and the living, breathing avatar for that sense of tiredness is poor old Roger.  A new Bond might have led to some energy on other levels as well. But if you're going to put Rog in the movie, don't pretend he's still 30.  It's not fair to him or anyone else.

The movie didn't say anything about Bond's age. Why not pretend that Roger Moore is playing a 57-year old James Bond?
As for the rest of the movie. To me it is just not believable that EON would intentionally decide to make a "subpar" movie as you imply here. Let's not forget that this is by far one of the most expensive films made in 1985. The idea that some "lazy" filmmakers would wander around the set not knowing what they are doing is just absurd. The intention with this film (and every other Bond movie...) must have been to make the best one yet.
In AVTAK, they put more emphasis on the villain and his scheme. I guess they were inspired by Brandauer's Largo in NSNA. The importance of the villains caper was frequently mentioned in several interviews. Bond is also less reliant on gadgets and forced to rely on his own wit. The female character is more developed than what we have seen before. The action is more advanced than anything previously seen if you take the locations into account. Just imagine the bureaucracy nightmare of jumping from the Eiffel Tower and filming chase scenes in Paris and San Francisco. Let's burn up the City Hall while we are at it. Overall, I think it is evident that plenty of hard work went into the script to tie it all togheter. As an example, Zorin has several reasons to burn up the City Hall... get rid of Bond, Stacey, Howe and all the investigations stored in the City Hall archive. Compare that kind of writing to SPECTRE, with Blofeld randomly popping up in London to blow up the MI-6 building...

Oh, and the 007 stage completely rebuilt to film the most advanced set we have seen since perhaps MR.

In Topic: Favorite Roger Moore James Bond Film

28 March 2017 - 03:45 PM

I stopped reading when he mentioned "critical consensus". The average of all opinions out there is simply not interesting enough.

As for age: NSNA highlighted Connery's age and built the film around a 'retired' Bond. I think that turned out to be a disaster, and cannot understand why you would want that in an official movie.

In Topic: Minor snippet of news

08 February 2017 - 10:28 PM

All they need now is a script and a few actors, and Bond 25 is pretty much ready for release.

In Topic: A View to a Kill analysis

17 January 2017 - 04:34 PM

I think it is pretty clear that Bond did not see May Day during the restaurant scene. Bond is looking at the lady - the person who controls the butterflies is almost behind him, as you can see when Bond spots him at the beginning of the scene. Bond is looking uncomfortable because he hear some noise and gets a bad feeling about the situation. That's how I interpret it.


We really differ when it comes to the whole Paris scene btw. I think this is Bond at its best, from  "Bollinger '75" to "Congratulations!". They should use this for film school projects on how to make movies.