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

Which Bond are you most protective of?


67 replies to this topic

#31 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 19 August 2008 - 05:04 PM

Let’s just turn this into a Moonraker appreciation thread, shall we?

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.


Tell me which other Bond film features a stunning beauty being chased by savage dogs through a dark, menacing forest. Campy indeed! :)

#32 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 19 August 2008 - 05:20 PM

Moonraker is simply both. It's the grit that FYEO claims to be, and it's also unbridled camp.

Ya just gotta look the other way when the goofiness comes around. Either that, or embrace it.

#33 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 20 August 2008 - 12:52 AM

On this site, I'm most protective of the Brosnan era films. GE was my first Bond film in the cinema, and "Bond is back" was an important thing for many people of my generation, I think.

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.


I too am protective of Brosnan, and don't know where this sudden hatred of his movies among Bond fans has come from. At the same time, friends of mine who are only casual Bond fans, still love Brosnan, as well as Craig.

Let’s just turn this into a Moonraker appreciation thread, shall we?

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.


Tell me which other Bond film features a stunning beauty being chased by savage dogs through a dark, menacing forest. Campy indeed! :)


Yes, I am a fan of Moonraker, too. Especially before it goes into space, at about 1 hour 25 minutes, I'm guessing?

There are an incredible amount of locations and action set-pieces. There's an excellent section in Rio which features Bond's arrival, then encounter with Jaws during the Mardi Gras, followed by the cable car fight & crash, then the very quick and often-forgotten ambulance fight, before Bond is off to see M, Q and Moneypenny and a boat trip along the Amazon, followed by another boat chase!


#34 Licence_007

Licence_007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 20 August 2008 - 03:35 PM

I always defend Timothy Dalton to the hilt. He seems to get a massive amount of unfair criticism from casual Bond viewers and is constantly forgotten. I'm always fighting in his corner everytime I hear someone call him the worst.

The film that I'm most protective of is a tougher question. I defend LTK and OHMSS very readily as again they seem to have a lot of unfair criticism placed upon them, despite the fact that OHMSS is one of the best of the series and LTK is better than most of the 21, in my opinion though of course.

#35 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 20 August 2008 - 05:26 PM

I too am protective of Brosnan, and don't know where this sudden hatred of his movies among Bond fans has come from.

There's a whole thread, started by a member by the name of 'sorking', that you should check out Dave. There you will find where this sudden hatred* for the Pierce Era has come from.

* Let's be honest about it and not call it 'hatred', by the way. It's apathy, or maybe even strong dislike, but not hatred. There's a thread on that topic too. :(

#36 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 20 August 2008 - 05:50 PM

I too am protective of Brosnan, and don't know where this sudden hatred of his movies among Bond fans has come from.

There's a whole thread, started by a member by the name of 'sorking', that you should check out Dave. There you will find where this sudden hatred* for the Pierce Era has come from.

* Let's be honest about it and not call it 'hatred', by the way. It's apathy, or maybe even strong dislike, but not hatred. There's a thread on that topic too. :(


I'm sorry, but hatred and loathing of Brosnan come over to me in a lot of CBn-ers' posts.

#37 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 21 August 2008 - 02:38 AM

I too am protective of Brosnan, and don't know where this sudden hatred of his movies among Bond fans has come from.

There's a whole thread, started by a member by the name of 'sorking', that you should check out Dave. There you will find where this sudden hatred* for the Pierce Era has come from.

* Let's be honest about it and not call it 'hatred', by the way. It's apathy, or maybe even strong dislike, but not hatred. There's a thread on that topic too. :(


I'm sorry, but hatred and loathing of Brosnan come over to me in a lot of CBn-ers' posts.


It's worse for those who hated it him at the time! Because they had to wait from 1989 until 2006 for Bond movies they liked!! That's a long wait. I am really glad I enjoyed Brosnan's tenure.

#38 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 August 2008 - 04:04 AM

I too am protective of Brosnan, and don't know where this sudden hatred of his movies among Bond fans has come from.

There's a whole thread, started by a member by the name of 'sorking', that you should check out Dave. There you will find where this sudden hatred* for the Pierce Era has come from.

* Let's be honest about it and not call it 'hatred', by the way. It's apathy, or maybe even strong dislike, but not hatred. There's a thread on that topic too. :(


I'm sorry, but hatred and loathing of Brosnan come over to me in a lot of CBn-ers' posts.


It's worse for those who hated it him at the time! Because they had to wait from 1989 until 2006 for Bond movies they liked!! That's a long wait. I am really glad I enjoyed Brosnan's tenure.


And I'm glad you enjoyed it too. And I've come to wish it had been a ten-ure instead of just a seven-ure. :)

#39 Cruiserweight

Cruiserweight

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6815 posts
  • Location:Toledo, Ohio

Posted 21 August 2008 - 11:44 PM

I'll tell you why i protect FYEO so much. Everyone gets on it for stating that it's the down to earth,gritty Moore bond film when in their opinion it fails to deliver that mostly because of Max & the Prime Minister scene. Well i think it does indeed fill the role of the gritty Moore bond film.It's not like it claimed to be a down to earth bond & then was full of Moonraker/Die Another Day type of effects. Now lets look at the two elements that people complain about. 1.Max the parrot being the one who helps bond. I really don't think it's that bad. Animals help solve crimes all the time & i actually think it was a good,belivable twist to have Max be the one who helped. 2.The Prime Minister scene may be dumb but i timed it and the scene is about 2 minutes long. Hardly much to complain about in a movie that's over two hours long.Plus almost every bond film(Except OHMSS,LTK,CR) has some humor in it.

#40 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 22 August 2008 - 12:55 AM

I'll tell you why i protect FYEO so much. Everyone gets on it for stating that it's the down to earth,gritty Moore bond film when in their opinion it fails to deliver that mostly because of Max & the Prime Minister scene. Well i think it does indeed fill the role of the gritty Moore bond film.It's not like it claimed to be a down to earth bond & then was full of Moonraker/Die Another Day type of effects. Now lets look at the two elements that people complain about. 1.Max the parrot being the one who helps bond. I really don't think it's that bad. Animals help solve crimes all the time & i actually think it was a good,belivable twist to have Max be the one who helped. 2.The Prime Minister scene may be dumb but i timed it it and the scene is about 2 minutes long. Hardly much to complain about in a movie that's over two hours long.Plus almost every bond film(Except OHMSS,LTK,CR) has some humor in it.


I agree. It's the same with Moonraker. Some people would have you believe the whole thing took place in space.

I love FYEO, it's my favourite along with FRWL. It has beautiful locations - Italy, Spain, Greece, beautiful girls, a ski chase including a long a bobsled run (shades of OHMSS), it finally kills of Blofeld, and it has great underwater and cliff-climbing action. As well as that it features one of 007's most charismatic allies in Colombo.

Plus it features this beautifully filmed and acted scene...

Attached Files

  • Attached File  FYEO.jpg   123.53KB   16 downloads


#41 double o ego

double o ego

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts
  • Location:London, England

Posted 26 August 2008 - 06:58 PM

I'm protective of Connery, Craig and Dalton and the movie I protect the most is, Dr.No

#42 Red Barchetta

Red Barchetta

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1161 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA, USA

Posted 26 August 2008 - 07:11 PM

I'm protective of Bros, and Dalton.

Sean, and Rog don't need protection.


And Craig is too early to tell, but I like what I've seen on screen so far! :(

#43 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 26 August 2008 - 08:23 PM

I'm sorry, but hatred and loathing of Brosnan come over to me in a lot of CBn-ers' posts.

I don’t think so. I think there’s just a lot of ‘making fun’. We’re all looking at Bond under a microscope here. While logged into CBn, Bond becomes our ‘little universe’, and so the positives and negatives are all going to be exaggerated to expanses that would appear ridiculous on the outside.

Can I say that you ‘hate and loathe’ Thunderball? ‘Cause sometimes that’s what it sounds like.

Alternatively you could just as quickly say that many CBn-ers around here appear to truly love Casino Royale (or Dan Craig, or OHMSS, or whatever). Do we really take that to mean ‘love’? As in, ‘I’d lay down my life for it’. :(

No, I think we should remember where we are. Nobody hates anything about Bond around here. Once we log off I don’t think anybody is losing any sleep about the failed parahawks scene in TWINE.

#44 MooreisMore

MooreisMore

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 149 posts

Posted 20 September 2008 - 11:35 PM

In real life: I defend Dalton and Craig from the cruel gits out to get them.

Online: I defend Brosnan from the cruel gits out to get him.


No point in defending Moore as everyone knows he rules.

#45 BlackFire

BlackFire

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1300 posts
  • Location:Mexico

Posted 21 September 2008 - 01:02 AM

Everything from Pierce Brosnan as 007, actor and human :)

I just hate when someone talks :( about him or his works.

The movie I protect the most is Goldeneye.

Edited by BlackFire, 21 September 2008 - 01:03 AM.


#46 MooreisMore

MooreisMore

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 149 posts

Posted 21 September 2008 - 12:16 PM

It is disheartening to see how quicky fans have conformed to the view that Brosnan was bad.

#47 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 21 September 2008 - 11:39 PM

I am protective of Another Way to Die

#48 SolidWaffle

SolidWaffle

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 28 September 2008 - 08:39 PM

Since my first Bond was Goldeneye, Brosnan's my pet actor. I do think DAD sucked, but his other three I feel like defending, but I don't feel like posting about it. I think The World is Not Enough gets a lot of crap. Maybe I just don't see why, but I love that one. Same with Tomorrow Never Dies, but it wasn't as good. But I agree with most everyone that Die Another Day was not so good. And I agree with the 00tweleve on Eric Serra's score.

#49 ImTheMoneypenny

ImTheMoneypenny

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1352 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 September 2008 - 09:02 PM

I'm protective of LALD, and lately of QoS. :(

#50 staveoffzombies

staveoffzombies

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 176 posts

Posted 29 September 2008 - 02:59 AM

I'm very protective of Octopussy. While many Bond films invite derision and scorn, Octopussy doesn't even get that...most people don't even mention it. It's my second favorite of the Moore Bonds and will always be the Bond adventure I come to defend.

#51 Dangerous Liaison

Dangerous Liaison

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 80 posts

Posted 29 September 2008 - 03:08 AM

Dalton and Craig.

I've always loved Dalton's Bond, and while at first I almost signed the 'Craig Not Bond' petition, I now defend Dan-The-Man from all opposition.

#52 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 29 September 2008 - 05:04 AM

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.

But this brings up the question: is camp inherently bad?

I actually think the intentional camp of MOONRAKER makes it all the more enjoyable. It's outrageous and it knows it, and so the whole thing is a gloriously fun gag. I love it.

#53 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 29 September 2008 - 04:06 PM

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.

But this brings up the question: is camp inherently bad?

I actually think the intentional camp of MOONRAKER makes it all the more enjoyable. It's outrageous and it knows it, and so the whole thing is a gloriously fun gag. I love it.

No, not all camp is bad. I love camping. It only sucks when there are lots of mosquitoes and rain.

I think much of Moonraker is campy, but still enjoyable, for it is the good kind of camp. For example, I think most of Drax’s performance is campy, but he may be the best part of the film. I think the direction that takes the adventure into space is campy, but I am completely comfortable with it. (Even the silly Buck Rogers laser guns.) I don’t care for Chiles’ performance at all, but I still enjoy the camp of the moment when her identity is revealed and Bond starts pulling out all of her useless gadgets. Jaws getting swooshed away by a drunk Mardi Gras crowd is campy, and fun. Bond coincidentally stumbling upon the vixen that leads him to Drax’s missile silo is logically exasperating, but fun nonetheless.

But then there are the mosquitoes and the rain, which are not fun. Dolly’s character is just dumb. Jaws falling thousands of feet unharmed into a circus tent is dumb. Animal-personification is dumb.

Sometimes MR takes the camp too far. Those are the parts that I have to just turn a blind-eye to. The rest I embrace. And the film is still 100x’s better looking than anything we’d get for the next 18 years, and arguably better looking than anything before Casino Royale!!

I also defend DAD in sort of the same way. I can't stand the female lead character and it's hardly a movie in it's own right, but instead is an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink tribute to 40 years of Bond.

#54 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 29 September 2008 - 05:54 PM

But this brings up the question: is camp inherently bad?

No, especially if it's dark and aimed at multiple demographics, like Temple of Doom. My problem with Moonraker's camp is that gets way too kiddy by the end, with Jaws falling in love, he and Dolly surviving, and everyone learning a valuable lesson. TMWTGG was extremely campy, yet there was a sinister edge to it that was watered down for TSWLM and evaporated by the time of MR.

#55 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 19 February 2015 - 04:58 AM

 

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.

But this brings up the question: is camp inherently bad?

I actually think the intentional camp of MOONRAKER makes it all the more enjoyable. It's outrageous and it knows it, and so the whole thing is a gloriously fun gag. I love it.

 

 

Very true.



#56 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 February 2015 - 08:12 PM

If by protective one means rising to the defence of, these days it is Timothy Dalton's turn as Bond. Particularly since when he first played the role in 1987 most UK critics were falling over themselves to say how great he was, as I recall. These days he seems to be regarded in the media mainstream - as opposed to places like this which generally appreciate him - as a forgotten Bond, without even the back story of controversy on the set to generate media interest (I'm thinking here of George Lazenby and the old chestnuts which get re-heated every time Dame Diana Rigg is asked about her time filming OHMSS, as she was a few months back.)

 

Dalton was a good Bond. A great Bond in fact.  Through his all too brief period as Bond the series started to turn in a different direction, one I'd argue it has been going in ever since.



#57 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 10:38 PM

I might as well be one of the few - if not only - to defend of Die Another Day.

 

I won't even get into all the reasons I enjoy it just as much now as I did when it was new. I can live with the two wonky CGI moments and I appreciate Tamahori's less-than static camera movements.

 

I will also refuse to jump on the wagon that insists that, since Daniel Craig is so much 'better' than Pierce Brosnan, that one must revise one's opinion and start hating Brosnan now.

 

DAD is up there in my esteem alongside TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and OP.



#58 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 21 February 2015 - 12:50 AM

The one thing I dislike about a new Bond being installed is that the immediate predecessor is trashed, at least by some in the mass media.  In 1987 Timothy Dalton was hailed as "the best Bond in years". (How many years? Does that mean between 1973-1985 we had been watching a less than "best" Bond? Or even between 1962-1985?)

 

It didn't take long for the same critics, after 1995, to describe Dalton as "dull" and "dreary" compared with Pierce Brosnan. And as for Brosnan, how does he compare with Daniel Craig? It's as if he never existed, as far as I can make out.

 

I have my own opinions about what I like or do not like about a particular take on Bond, but I do not like the "out with the old, in with the new" line taken every time a new actor becomes 007. Every actor who has taken on this part has brought something valuable to the table, and should be respected as such rather than discarded as "yesterday's man" whenever the "new and improved" Bond actor takes over.



#59 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 21 February 2015 - 03:18 AM

The only one that never happened to was Connery.



#60 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 21 February 2015 - 07:18 AM

Dalton was a good Bond. A great Bond in fact.  Through his all too brief period as Bond the series started to turn in a different direction, one I'd argue it has been going in ever since.


Dalton still needs defending, but I find his standing has improved over time. Especially with Craig giving us a performance somewhat similar to Dalton. It's a lot easier to sell people on Dalton in comparison to Lazenby as well. But again, I think the tide has turned with OHMSS. It's in line with the current Craig films with limited gadgets, hard hitting brawls and that all important emotional core.