42 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I wouldn't be surprised if the producers lightened the series up noticably when they recast Bond (whenever that happens).

I dunno. I don't think we've had a particularly lighthearted Bond film since A VIEW TO A KILL, or a truly lighthearted one since OCTOPUSSY. I don't think Barbara Broccoli does lighthearted.

[DR76]

Why do fans always dump the escapist tone of the Bond movies, solely on Roger Moore's shoulders? The cartoonish Bond films had been around since 1964's "GOLDFINGER". And Connery went on to do two more, along with "THUNDERBALL". And by the way, Moore has done at least one gritty Bond film with great success - "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" - and two movies that had a mixture of grittiness and fantasy - "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" and "OCTOPUSSY". And in Connery's case, I can only consider one of his Bond movies as solely gritty - namely "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE".

Because the topic is about the tone of his early '70s run, so could we stay focused on Moore's early '70s efforts and save the Connery and Craig talk for another time? Thanks!

Why? I merely used Connery and Craig to make a point.

[coco1997]

And by the way, Moore has done at least one gritty Bond film with great success - "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" - and two movies that had a mixture of grittiness and fantasy - "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" and "OCTOPUSSY".

"AVTAK" was arguably as dark and gritty as both. It was definitely Moore's most violent Bond film.

[David Schofield]

And yet we have Craig as a super hard commando with his fancy fighting moves and rock-hard muscles.

If I were a soldier in Afganistan, I'd be insutled: what we need now is a bonkers Roger Moore Bond, then.

Why? Why on earth would a soldier in Afghanistan be insulted by Craig's take on the Bond character?

Because we're sold Craig's Bond as realistic and yet with his gym'n-roids physique and slap-happy fighting technique (the lift fight in OOS is ludicrous, but sold as po-faced 'honest') he is no more real than Rog's tan-suited old boy.

The failure by the filmakers to admit that Craig is still a spoof commando would, I am therefore suggesting, be considered an insult by a real soldier who probably doesn't live in the gym and knows opponents don't go down with just a slap. In a madly messed up world these guys are fighting in, isn't the fantasy of the Moore version more appealing and honest?

[Dustin]

I suppose it's not so much about honest or authentic depiction of physical action but about how convincing it is. Given our reality we naturally have seen tons of violence in the media, both as documentary and as entertainment. Against that backdrop, and in view of the more serious direction of the last few films the depiction of fights involving Craig's Bond must surely be seen as appropriate for the most part. That fight in the loo in CR is a stunning piece of cinema that leaves the audience both fascinated and revolted, in the spirit of that great fight from Torn Curtain.

Indeed it's most debatable how and why a piece like that lift fight from QOS found its way into that film. It's truly laughably silly that Superbond should take out all those adversaries so fast and easy. Please bear in mind that these men are meant to be professionals who should rather chew their own shooting irons than let themselves get caught so easily. And they are also meant to be fellow agents of Bond, so any one-strike/down-you-go tricks are out of the question as these would surely result in permanent damage, most likely of the lethal variety.

Edited by Dustin, 18 May 2011 - 09:09 AM.

[Napoleon Solo]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Also note that Live And Let Die was the first Bond movie to surpass Thunderball in UNadjusted worldwide box office:

http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

Now, LALD's U.S. box office still wasn't as good as Thunderball's. But LALD outperformed the three intervening 007 films in worldwide box office. Sir Roger's debut was hardly a financial failure. The franchise did have a financial backslide with The Man With the Golden Gun, then rebounded with The Spy Who Loved Me.

[Napoleon Solo]

Bond obviously got pretty comical 007 during the early '70s, and I can see why, as the franchise was a cash cow that was marketed for the masses, rather than the cineaste. The average Bond fan may have been quite a different audience than the one who'd go and see The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor .

Brian: I've heard debates among Bond fans on this general topic. Some say why couldn't we have had a serious Bond in the early '70s? Afterall, there was Three Days of the Jackal (or name other serious spy movie here).

The thing is, The Day of the Jackal, The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, et. al. were all one-offs. (I ended up seeing all three movies when they were released.) They didn't have to worry about carrying on a series, etc., etc. With Bond, and I can only speak for myself, as an audience member I was looking for something else. By the time Casino Royale came out in 2006, Bond had been around so long, I *suspect* the general audience was more open to a more serious approach. But I also suspect that in the early '70s, had there been a Bond with deception, double crosses, etc., there would have been a bad raction. If we wanted dark, double crosses, etc., we could go see Three Days of the Condor, The Day of the Jackal, etc.

Also, as I noted in another reply in this topic, Live And Let Die was the first Bond film to have a worldwide gross that exceeded Thunderball (LALD's U.S. box office still trailed Thunderball's). There was no way once LALD came out, they were going to go dark for a while.

[Brian Flagg]

The thing is, The Day of the Jackal, The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, et. al. were all one-offs. (I ended up seeing all three movies when they were released.) They didn't have to worry about carrying on a series, etc., etc. With Bond, and I can only speak for myself, as an audience member I was looking for something else. By the time Casino Royale came out in 2006, Bond had been around so long, I *suspect* the general audience was more open to a more serious approach. But I also suspect that in the early '70s, had there been a Bond with deception, double crosses, etc., there would have been a bad raction. If we wanted dark, double crosses, etc., we could go see Three Days of the Condor, The Day of the Jackal, etc.

I'm sure the lesson of OHMSS may have still loomed large in terms of the type of Bond film people would empty their wallets out for, but given the post-Vietnam/Watergate period, it may well have been time for at least a one-off attempt (as you mention regarding those political thrillers) at going truly serious. However, I can understand Broccoli and Saltzman not wanting to take a chance on another grim tale with yet another new Bond actor. It sure would've been interesting to see, though.

[BoogieBond]

Interesting premise, a completely faithful adaption of LALD for Roger's first, I think Roger could have handled that. LALD has been chopped up a bit, the keel hauling sequence in FYEO(A Rog film) and "The Robber" sequences and Felix fed to the shark in LTK. It would have been interesting seeing rog get his finger broken and also have a chunk taken out of his shoulder by barracuda, having a liason with an octopus on the way to planting Mr Big's mines. But the LALD novel is quite an exciting adventure filled ride(with some darker moments). I wouldn't want the Boat chase or Croc scenes taken out of the film, they're great.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

I think this is largely what contributed to the series' continued success in the 70s. It was effective counter-programming. The world had changed dramatically in the decade between Dr. No and Live and Let Die. Movie screens were dominated by intense, angst-filled, "ethnic" leading men like Pacino, Hoffman and De Nero, or monosyllabic tough guys like Eastwood and Bronson. Then you had Moore - conventionally good looking, debonair and cheerfully anachronistic.

The Bonds of the 70s were lighthearted good fun at a time when there wasn't much of that to go around. Frankly, it's something the Craig Bonds would do well to remember, though with people like Mendes and Peter Morgan on board, I doubt Bond 23 will be all that much fun.

[Miles Miservy]

With the largely lightweight content of the Bond films, should they have gone in another direction in 1973 and embraced a more "relevant" tone for the Moore era? Would a faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die jumpstarted the franchise that belonged to a genre that was downright unpopular when portrayed ina heroic light? Could Roger have played Bond with a dark, burned-out, and cynical attitude?

For the silly, escapist second half of the 1970s Rog's Bond many have been just right, but for the gritty, burned-out early 1970s Bond is horribly out of step. Camp and over-the-top silliness amid Watergate and an ineffective British government was irrelevant in an era where political corruption, paranoia, and wiretapping ruled the day. Moore's effete 007 is at odds with films like The Conversation, The Parallax View, and Three Days of the Condor all of which reflected the mistrust of government agencies and the paranoid atmosphere that existed during the early 1970s. Should the Bond films have latched onto the grittiness of those times?

No... 007 films were only up to the minute from a technological point of view. One goes to a Bond movie to escape, not to delve into the sign of the times. That's why films that date themselves (like TMWTGG & TLD) do not stand out like the grand spectacles like MR & GF. Even in Sean Connery's era, the Russians were never the bad guys per se; just 2 spy agencies pitted against easchother.

[Brian Flagg]

No... 007 films were only up to the minute from a technological point of view. One goes to a Bond movie to escape, not to delve into the sign of the times. That's why films that date themselves (like TMWTGG & TLD) do not stand out like the grand spectacles like MR & GF. Even in Sean Connery's era, the Russians were never the bad guys per se; just 2 spy agencies pitted against easchother.

Agreed on the escapist aspect. However, I'm not saying there should've been references to Watergate or Nixon. I'm thinking more along the lines of having the movies latch on to the tenor of those days: the mistrust of government, the cloak-and-dagger backstabbing, and above all, the atmosphere of Fleming's novel.

I'm watching the 1975 Gene Hackman film Night Moves, and while it's representative of the era, the downbeat themes reflect the character more than anything else; Bond has that kind of "baggage" in the later novels, so I could see it being used for his character in 1973.

[Capsule in Space]

Because we're sold Craig's Bond as realistic and yet with his gym'n-roids physique and slap-happy fighting technique (the lift fight in OOS is ludicrous, but sold as po-faced 'honest') he is no more real than Rog's tan-suited old boy.

The failure by the filmakers to admit that Craig is still a spoof commando would, I am therefore suggesting, be considered an insult by a real soldier who probably doesn't live in the gym and knows opponents don't go down with just a slap. In a madly messed up world these guys are fighting in, isn't the fantasy of the Moore version more appealing and honest?

I agree with every word you wrote.

EON is trying to have it both ways. A "realistic" Bond, within the realm of unrealistic actions and circumstances, as you have described.