5 replies to this topic

[Mark Hazard @ Transworld Exports]

I like the direction they are taking with this next movie in making Bond more harder edged and going back to his roots. For a while, when Roger Moore played Bond, they made the series more kid friendly, adding more humor and toning down the violence. Then, when Dalton took over, He played bond much more serious- like the Bond of the novels. People just weren't ready for that after twelve years of Roger Moore. It was too drastic a change. I think Pierce was also a good Bond. He had a good combination of humor and lethality when it called for it- (like shooting Electra King dead when she wouldn't cooperate.)

Of course, Connery was a great Bond, but after Thunderball you could tell he was tired of the part and I think the writers of the the movie versions of You only live twice and Diamonds are forever- strayed too far from the novels and gave him little to work with plot wise. On her majesties' secret service would have been great if Connery played it because they followed the book very closely. People just weren't ready to accept George Lazenby as the new Bond and the movie suffered at the box office- (60 million vs 100 million made by the previous Bond film. Also, Lazenby didn't want to play Bond after that one movie. His agent told him that the Bond franchise wouldn't last.

From what I've heard of the movie version of Casino Royale, they are going to stay very close the the plot of the original novel- even using the torture scene with the carpet beater (ouch!) Daniel Craig is a fine actor- rent "Layer Cake" if you've never seen it- good movie. I'm sure Craig will make a fine Bond as well. Maybe the newer harder edged Bond will turn off the casual Bond viewers, but I'm sure the true fans of Bond will be pleased. After all, Bond is first and foremost an assassin, more anti-hero than hero. We should never lose sight of that.

[krypt]

As a fan of the Bond novels (Fleming, Gardner and Benson) as well as the films, I welcome a tougher approach in CR.

[Mr_Wint]

So, what are you saying? Anyone who likes Roger Moore and his Bond is not a true fan? Isn't that a little bit egoistic? May I even say provoking?

I'm a fan of EON's Bond myself and will always use the Connery/Moore film's as a reference for future Bondfilms.

[Mark Hazard @ Transworld Exports]

So, what are you saying? Anyone who likes Roger Moore and his Bond is not a true fan? Isn't that a little bit egoistic? May I even say provoking?

I'm a fan of EON's Bond myself and will always use the Connery/Moore film's as a reference for future Bondfilms.

I'm saying that they candy coated Bond to make him more commercially accessible to all audiences and I think Moore's tenure as Bond suffered because of that. I'm sure he could have played Bond tougher and deadlier if the movie producers would have allowed that. I also think they kept Moore too long in the series. He was 58 in A view to a kill, not a very realistic age for a double o agent to be and still be active. I think they retired Brosnan at the right time too. He would be too old in the next Bond film.

[avl]

So, what are you saying? Anyone who likes Roger Moore and his Bond is not a true fan? Isn't that a little bit egoistic? May I even say provoking?

I'm a fan of EON's Bond myself and will always use the Connery/Moore film's as a reference for future Bondfilms.

I'm saying that they candy coated Bond to make him more commercially accessible to all audiences and I think Moore's tenure as Bond suffered because of that. I'm sure he could have played Bond tougher and deadlier if the movie producers would have allowed that. I also think they kept Moore too long in the series. He was 58 in A view to a kill, not a very realistic age for a double o agent to be and still be active. I think they retired Brosnan at the right time too. He would be too old in the next Bond film.

But Moore didnt want to play it straight. He has said a number of times that he can't take Bond (or any violent hero) seriously, and played it tongue in cheek accordingly. Also an approach that seemed right for the 70s - hence IMHO his success in TSWLM and MR and a sense of discomfort in FYEO.

[Seannery]

Cinematic Bond from Connery down on was the reason Bond exploded across the globe. Cubby and Harry were wise to know the difference between the mediums of film and cinema--and they adapted the novels to the strength of the cinemas. To make cinematic Bond into literary Bond would be a great mistake--that would only be a move that pleased fanboys and hardcores and would not attract a mass audience. Cubby knew that and I expect his children do too--they are tweaking things but not getting slavish with adapting CR.