189 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

I'd agree with you on YOLT, but then again that's really the fault of the script.

But Moonraker? It's one of the best directed Bond films (this being a message board and all, I suppose I have to add: "in my opinion"). Sorry Blofeld, just can't agree with you on this one, Gilbert is a great director, and his Bond films really benefit from it.

This is not to say I agree with those saying Forster was a bad director or his film suffered from it. But anyone can see the difference between Gilbert and Forster's styles.

[Capsule in Space]

Gilbert was much better with smaller films, or at least smaller, interpersonal scenes (the Bond-Anya hotel room revelation, for instance); when it was time for the big, BIG moments of action, etc., he was completely dwarfed by it and just... well, got lost in it.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think Gilbert's specialty was delivering Bond films on an epic scale.

Action has to go someplace, not just be mindless "action"; that's the sins YOLT and MR commit -- at least TSWLM's big armada scenes are purposefully going someplace (i.e., to gain control of the Liparus and get the hell out of there), and it's nicely situated towards the middle-end of the picture, but YOLT and MR? They just completely lose the thread of the whole thing.

I don't think the action is mindless. The action throughout the works of Gilbert lead to the action in the finales of both films. The purpose of the assault on Blofeld's volcano lair in YOLT was to gain access to the control room in order to stop the SPECTRE space craft. The purpose of the assault on Drax's space station in Moonraker was to stop the release of the globes containing a deadly virus.

Are both of these finales over the top? Yes, but they do serve a purpose in the narrative.

[Capsule in Space]

But Moonraker? It's one of the best directed Bond films.

I agree.

Yes, I understand that people don't like the story, but Moonraker is perhaps the best made film in the series. The direction, cinematography, special effects, set design, Barry's score, and the rest of the production values are all superb.

[JimmyBond]

It truly is one of the last Bond films made where you can see where all the money went.

[Red Barchetta]

I hadn't heard that Babs, and Pierce didn't get along. But, if they didn't, that explains alot of Pierce's behavior after he was not asked back.

And yes, P&W did not bring the writing up to par for a Bond film- they shot bogeys.

[iBond]

I hadn't heard that Babs, and Pierce didn't get along. But, if they didn't, that explains alot of Pierce's behavior after he was not asked back.

And yes, P&W did not bring the writing up to par for a Bond film- they shot bogeys.

Same here. But at the same time, once they got the rights to make Casino Royale that could also be the reason why he wasn't asked back. They needed someone younger.

[Righty007]

I hadn't heard that Babs, and Pierce didn't get along. But, if they didn't, that explains alot of Pierce's behavior after he was not asked back.

And yes, P&W did not bring the writing up to par for a Bond film- they shot bogeys.

Same here. But at the same time, once they got the rights to make Casino Royale that could also be the reason why he wasn't asked back. They needed someone younger.

Deciding to film Casino Royale didn't mean they needed a younger actor. Anybody that has read the book can tell you that it didn't feature Bond on his "first mission" as 007. Getting a younger actor came when the producers decided to reboot the series. Had they not wanted to reboot the series, Brosnan would have been quite capable of doing Casino Royale.

[00 Brosnan]

I hadn't heard that Babs, and Pierce didn't get along. But, if they didn't, that explains alot of Pierce's behavior after he was not asked back.

I've heard they didn't, but I haven't seen any evidence of truth to that.

I can understand Brosnan acting out a little bit in the the manner he did. He was highly successful and popular in the role, it was a role he loved playing, and was obviously born to play. After the financial success of DAD he was asked back (since he had no contact at that point) for Bond 21 and then after several negotiating sessions, EON decided to go in a different direction.

Brosnan said during his tenure he thought 5 films was a good number and he was conscious of the fact that people were un-happy w/ Moore in the role for so long (at his age). It's my opinion (and he probably felt the same way) that his tenure was cut short by one film. It's not as if he looked old or was obviously past his prime to most viewers. I really believe if Cubby Broccoli was still alive Brosnan would have had fifth film.

But in the end I think there were several factors that caused the outcome we got. Realistic reboots were & still are all the rage in Hollywood and whether you want to admit it or not the Bourne franchise had an impact on the genre and EON's thinking. Because of those factors it wasn't that risky to go with a new actor and a rebooted...more realistic storyline.

I hadn't heard that Babs, and Pierce didn't get along. But, if they didn't, that explains alot of Pierce's behavior after he was not asked back.

And yes, P&W did not bring the writing up to par for a Bond film- they shot bogeys.

Same here. But at the same time, once they got the rights to make Casino Royale that could also be the reason why he wasn't asked back. They needed someone younger.

Deciding to film Casino Royale didn't mean they needed a younger actor. Anybody that has read the book can tell you that it didn't feature Bond on his "first mission" as 007. Getting a younger actor came when the producers decided to reboot the series. Had they not wanted to reboot the series, Brosnan would have been quite capable of doing Casino Royale.

This is true. As a fan of Brosnan's Bond, I would have liked him to have a fifth (and final) film, but I certainly do like Daniel Craig in the role. I would however like to see more traditional elements introduced in Bond 23. As much as I enjoy (and I really do) QoS, it was a pretty generic, modern action film.

[Capsule in Space]

But in the end I think there were several factors that caused the outcome we got. Realistic reboots were & still are all the rage in Hollywood and whether you want to admit it or not the Bourne franchise had an impact on the genre and EON's thinking. Because of those factors it wasn't that risky to go with a new actor and a rebooted...more realistic storyline.

Yes, and EON allowing themselves to get sucked into the reboot and Bourne hype was a big mistake.

[AMC Hornet]

I can't speak for Bond purists. But even they will vouch that the [Brosnan] films have had relatively little to do with Fleming for the most part.

...So?

Once 007 arrives in Las Vegas, DAF had little to do with Fleming's novel (which is not entirely a bad thing). Likewise there were characters, locations and situations in YOLT, LALD, MR, FYEO, and OP that were drawn from their respective novels, and just as much material that was not.

As a Bond 'purist' I enjoyed 'em all anyway, for their own merits.

Timothy Dalton had the distinction of making the (then) last film based on an original Fleming title, and the first non-Fleming-titled film based, as has been mentioned, on LALD & The Hildebrand Rarity.

I like TLD better.

I for one didn't expect any Fleming material in Brosnan's canon. The rare nods to "Sir" Ian that cropped up were welcome morsels in an otherwise original series of films.

Compared to what one could have expected (and had been previously delivered), Casino Royale was a long-overdue, faithful adaptation of a 54-year-old novel modernized in all the right places. Poker instead of Baccarat? I'm good with it. I'm even surprised EON had the courage to use the original title, considering the bad taste left in so many mouths after 1967's offering.

So Brosnan's canon didn't draw much if anything from Fleming. So the 17th-20th films in the series didn't draw anything from the 12 novels and assorted short stories by the original author. Neither did AVTAK. Neither did TMWTGG apart from some character names. iBond is right - Pierce Brosnan did get a bad rap.

As I've said before in other rants, I have room in my heart for Fleming's Bond, Gardner's Bond and EON's various Bonds, etc, without finding it necessary to change my mind and turn my back on any I've loved before (I'm more forgiving of 007 than I am of a lot of people in my life).

...Am I the only one?

Edited by AMC Hornet, 25 August 2011 - 02:45 AM.