667 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

A big welcome to the CommanderBond.net Forums!

[tdalton]

GoldenEye was a bank robbery, TND was a little bit of a reserved Bond, DAD was great only for seeing Halle Berry emerging from the Ocean.  The World is Not Enough was Brosnan's best, we got to see him be the Bond we all know and love, besides, killing Electra in cold blood was the icing on the cake.  Yeah it is hard to imagine Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist, but damn she sure looked great!

The World Is Not Enough was the only film of his that was actually a Bond movie. GE was just a bank robber film dressed up to look like a Bond film. TND was just terrible, and DAD wouldn't have been out of place in either the Star Trek or Star Wars series' in terms of storyline (note I didn't say that it could match up to those franchises in terms of quality).

[Turn]

[quote name='tdalton' date='11 July 2005 - 01:02'][quote name='hcmv007' date='10 July 2005 - 18:50']GoldenEye was a bank robbery, TND was a little bit of a reserved Bond, DAD was great only for seeing Halle Berry emerging from the Ocean.

[The Richmond Spy]

I agree that Moore and Connery wouldn't have fallen for her like Brosnan's Bond did, but who can blame him? Elektra King is definitely one of the best Bond girls, in my opinion.

[Scottlee]

I think people are sometimes too presumptious about what Connery/Moore were not capable of. It's easy to think they could never have done a script like OHMSS or TWINE, but they were both such good professional actors, I'm sure they would have done a credible job with either film had they been given the chance.

Edited by Scottlee, 16 July 2005 - 06:41 PM.

[YOLT]

I think people are sometimes too presumptious about what Connery/Moore were not capable of. It's easy to think they could never have done a script like OHMSS or TWINE, but they were both such good professional actors, I'm sure they would have done a credible job with either film had they been given the chance.

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.
Connery and Moore are better because they didnt had any perosnal films. Maybe perosnla moments only which was enough.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

[Moore Not Less]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt.

Yes, indeed. Moore and Connery were both capable of doing an OHMSS, LTK or TWINE. You only have to look at some of their work inside and also outside of the Bond films to know this.

[YOLT]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

[bryonalston]

What's so bad about personal Bond films? If you want to see some heartless killing machine shoot people up for an hour and a half, then go and rent 'Terminator.' Bond is a human, and every couple of films, it would be good to see Bond reflect that (Moore did a good job in FYEO of making his Bond a human.) The one qualm I have with Connery's Bond is that you never see behind his tough as nails exterior. I think that it would have been good if he had done OHMSS, because it would have made him a much more rounded character.

[YOLT]

What's so bad about personal Bond films? If you want to see some heartless killing machine shoot people up for an hour and a half, then go and rent 'Terminator.' Bond is a human, and every couple of films, it would be good to see Bond reflect that (Moore did a good job in FYEO of making his Bond a human.) The one qualm I have with Connery's Bond is that you never see behind his tough as nails exterior. I think that it would have been good if he had done OHMSS, because it would have made him a much more rounded character.

Well Bond being personal and all the film being personal are different things. Connery and Moore made 13 films total (offically) and none of them were personal. But they had personal moments.
On the other hand Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan made a total of 7 films which 5 of them are personal. They got married, took revenge, had love etc. But these things made 007 films less Bondian. If this trend goes on Bond will die I am afraid.

[hrabb04]

YOLT, I don't know where you are coming from with your outlook on personal movies and Bond, in particular. You really do need to check other movies out that are more up your alley like Bad Boys 2--no, wait, there is a personal element in that with the sister--, or Commando--no, wait, there's a thing there with his daughter. Sorry, YOLT, I think you are screwed.

[Turn]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

[YOLT]

YOLT, I don't know where you are coming from with your outlook on personal movies and Bond, in particular.  You really do need to check other movies out that are more up your alley like Bad Boys 2--no, wait, there is a personal element in that with the sister--, or Commando--no, wait, there's a thing there with his daughter.  Sorry, YOLT, I think you are screwed.

Who cares Bad Boys? Arent you the guy that hates Roger Moore. No need to talk then with you

[YOLT]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

No the way opposite. Connery saw the OHMSS script and he said he wont be playing, he wont marry. So they changed it with YOLT. Just look at DAF is Connery someone whose wife has been killed. NO. Moore was also the same. In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum. In Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan years emotions at the maximum. And thats why Lazenby Dalton and Brosnan generally suck.

[licensetostudy]

In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum.

Moore did not have the personality to make an emotionally driven Bond movie, and the lightness of his films according to Michael Wilson is due to Moore's lighter personality which is the message I got from the documentary The James Bond story from 1999.

Edited by licensetostudy, 22 July 2005 - 10:25 AM.

[Turn]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

No the way opposite. Connery saw the OHMSS script and he said he wont be playing, he wont marry. So they changed it with YOLT. Just look at DAF is Connery someone whose wife has been killed. NO. Moore was also the same. In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum. In Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan years emotions at the maximum. And thats why Lazenby Dalton and Brosnan generally suck.

In what alternate universe did this happen? Show me the proof of this in ANY form and I'll believe you. Otherwise, this simply isn't worth arguing as you want to ignore facts to suit your own opinion.

[YOLT]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

No the way opposite. Connery saw the OHMSS script and he said he wont be playing, he wont marry. So they changed it with YOLT. Just look at DAF is Connery someone whose wife has been killed. NO. Moore was also the same. In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum. In Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan years emotions at the maximum. And thats why Lazenby Dalton and Brosnan generally suck.

In what alternate universe did this happen? Show me the proof of this in ANY form and I'll believe you. Otherwise, this simply isn't worth arguing as you want to ignore facts to suit your own opinion.

I am not ignoring facts. All am I saying is that Connery and Moore are more sucesfull because their films was non-personal mission films.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

No the way opposite. Connery saw the OHMSS script and he said he wont be playing, he wont marry. So they changed it with YOLT. Just look at DAF is Connery someone whose wife has been killed. NO. Moore was also the same. In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum. In Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan years emotions at the maximum. And thats why Lazenby Dalton and Brosnan generally suck.

In what alternate universe did this happen? Show me the proof of this in ANY form and I'll believe you. Otherwise, this simply isn't worth arguing as you want to ignore facts to suit your own opinion.

I am not ignoring facts. All am I saying is that Connery and Moore are more sucesfull because their films was non-personal mission films.

Yeah, but that is equally as founded in sheer supposition as saying "Moore & Connery knew better than to do personal films".
You don't have any proof to support a correlation between 'personal films' and box office success.

Edited by Roger_Moore's_Bad_Facelift, 23 July 2005 - 04:02 PM.

[Kingdom Come]

I voted Dad as not only is it the favourite of audiences (but not die hard fans) but also because it has all the right ingredients that should be present in a Bond film.

[The Richmond Spy]

Very good debate going on here, but with fear of messing it up I will stay out.
Instead, I will finish my previous post:

1) GoldenEye- What is there not to like about this one? Very good all-around. I liked how there was great development for numerous characters (Janus/006, Natalya, Ouromov, Boris, Zhukovsky, etc...)
2) Die Another Day- I love the villains and the storyline although based on what a lot of others think I guess I should classify this as a "guilty pleasure"
3) The World Is Not Enough- This one is very close to DAD, but I put it at #3 because Bond doesn't nail Christmas Jones until the very end.
4) Tomorrow Never Dies- I don't dislike this film, but if I were to pick a Brosnan film to see again and again.....it wouldn't be this one.

[YOLT]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

No the way opposite. Connery saw the OHMSS script and he said he wont be playing, he wont marry. So they changed it with YOLT. Just look at DAF is Connery someone whose wife has been killed. NO. Moore was also the same. In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum. In Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan years emotions at the maximum. And thats why Lazenby Dalton and Brosnan generally suck.

In what alternate universe did this happen? Show me the proof of this in ANY form and I'll believe you. Otherwise, this simply isn't worth arguing as you want to ignore facts to suit your own opinion.

I am not ignoring facts. All am I saying is that Connery and Moore are more sucesfull because their films was non-personal mission films.

Yeah, but that is equally as founded in sheer supposition as saying "Moore & Connery knew better than to do personal films".
You don't have any proof to support a correlation between 'personal films' and box office success.

Do you want proofs? Just look at OHMSS and LTK the two pre-Brosnan personal Bond films. Both sucked financially. They were not sucessful at the box-office.

[ACE]

I love YOLT's scientific approach.

Let's just ignore the verifiable facts and go with YOLT. And of course the personal Brosnan missions have been massive failures at the box office.

YOLT, there is NO correlation to box office and Bond's personal involvement in the story. Fact. Period. Get over it!

There IS a correlation between box office and the AUDIENCE's personal involvement in it. Go figure.

Arguing a point or, heaven forbid, changing someone's mind on the innerned is like a super tanker turning. It takes miles of posting to do so.

I personally do not like "personal" missions unless they are actually personal and afford an element of connectivity/continuity to the series. Fleming put Bond on the odd personal mission.

However, backstory and motivation are increasingly important in modern movie writing. Blofeld just WAS! No Lienz Cossack motivation for him. Mind you, I think the villain's motivation and backstories have been underdeveloped in some of the recent Bonds (Carver, Elektra - she banged on about her family's name and we never got to hear it in the film)

I like YOLT's choice of the next James Bond though....

ACE

Edited by ACE, 24 July 2005 - 03:38 PM.

[ES Blofeld]

His best was obviously GoldenEye. He looked young, but not too young, was still wielding the ppk, and all of the plots, and characters, in place. My fave would actually have been Tomorrow Never Dies, but a lot of parts in the movie which were great, ("Surrender", Paris Carver, The plot) Were messed up by (stealth boat, too much action, and the main title song "Tommorow Never Dies") If only it weren't so bad.....

But back on the topic my rankings would be:
GoldenEye
The World Is Not Enough
Tomorrow Never Dies
Die Another Day

Edited by ES Blofeld, 24 July 2005 - 03:56 PM.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The thing is, Moore and Connery were capable of doing an OHMSS,LTK or TWINE but they didnt. Because they knew that personal films will harm their 007 James Bond image.

Oh please.
Roger (god knows I love the man) did any script the producers flung at him just so long as his salary demands were met. Were was this alleged punctilious concern for his image when he was getting an antenae wacked in his groin (AVTAK), or when he was in a crocodile submarine(OP)?
If TWINE was written in the 80's Roger would have done it - no questions asked.

No I dont think so. I even think that Connery left the part because he didnt wanted to make OHMSS. He didnt wanted his 007 to marry.
Also Roger knew it. He wouldnt have done a personal film too.
I know that CR will be a personal one. So dont hope too much from it.

Check your Bond history and you'll find OHMSS was scheduled to be filmed before TB and YOLT, but for various reasons had the plug pulled on them and the other title put in their place. Connery wasn't that wrapped up in the character he couldn't see him being married. He's never spoken about this and he basically just wanted to do the Bond films because of his contract around that point so he could move on to other projects. Had OHMSS been one, he'd have done it.

No the way opposite. Connery saw the OHMSS script and he said he wont be playing, he wont marry. So they changed it with YOLT. Just look at DAF is Connery someone whose wife has been killed. NO. Moore was also the same. In Connery and Moore years emotions of 007 were at the minumum. In Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan years emotions at the maximum. And thats why Lazenby Dalton and Brosnan generally suck.

In what alternate universe did this happen? Show me the proof of this in ANY form and I'll believe you. Otherwise, this simply isn't worth arguing as you want to ignore facts to suit your own opinion.

I am not ignoring facts. All am I saying is that Connery and Moore are more sucesfull because their films was non-personal mission films.

Yeah, but that is equally as founded in sheer supposition as saying "Moore & Connery knew better than to do personal films".
You don't have any proof to support a correlation between 'personal films' and box office success.

Do you want proofs? Just look at OHMSS and LTK the two pre-Brosnan personal Bond films. Both sucked financially. They were not sucessful at the box-office.

That correlation is tenuous at best. You fail to include a host of other considerable variables (OHMSS not having Connery in it, audience apathy concerning Dalton, LTK's summer box office competition). You can't incontrovertibly say those films failed directly because they were personal. No way, now how.
The jig is up.

[bryonalston]

Just because the general audience is too naive to realize that Bond is a human who does do human things doesn't mean that the movies that fail to become blockbusters suck (i.e., LTK and OHMSS.) I agree with 'Facelift' that you can't say that a Bond movie tanks at the b.o. because it's too personal. OHMSS had to suffer from the FIRST New Bond. It might not seem like a big deal now, but back then, Bond WAS Connery to the general public, and it was difficult to accept Lazenby in the role. LTK was lost drowned in a summer FILLED with Blockbuster movies. If it had been released at a different time in the year, it might have done moderately better at the b.o. You shouldn't let a films financial success reflect on the quality of a movie either. Look at MR. It is one of the most successful Bond films, but maintains the reputation of being crap (it wasn't THAT bad, BTW.) OHMSS and LTK are sleeper films, and have become much more respected in recent years than they were in their time.

[licensetostudy]

Just because the general audience is too naive to realize that Bond is a human who does do human things doesn't mean that the movies that fail to become blockbusters suck (i.e., LTK and OHMSS.) I agree with 'Facelift' that you can't say that a Bond movie tanks at the b.o. because it's too personal. OHMSS had to suffer from the FIRST New Bond. It might not seem like a big deal now, but back then, Bond WAS Connery to the general public, and it was difficult to accept Lazenby in the role. LTK was lost drowned in a summer FILLED with Blockbuster movies. If it had been released at a different time in the year, it might have done moderately better at the b.o. You shouldn't let a films financial success reflect on the quality of a movie either. Look at MR. It is one of the most successful Bond films, but maintains the reputation of being crap (it wasn't THAT bad, BTW.) OHMSS and LTK are sleeper films, and have become much more respected in recent years than they were in their time.

Of the many people I spoke to when I was a kid during the end of Moore's era and the beginning of Dalton is that they liked the outrageous gadgets, the world domination plots, the bizzare industructable henchmen like Jaws, and to them it was all fun and intentionally stupid; Roger Ebert said in his Spy Who Loved Me review that the more preposterous the plot the better, and he went on to state in his Living Daylights review that Dalton's problem is that he took it too seriously and didn't understand that it's all just a joke. His main problem with For Your Eyes Only is that it is too "ordinary." The change to Dalton was too radical and a departure from what most people wanted from Bond. Furthermore, Bond films were on shakey ground during the 80s because people were tired of it after years of non-stop pictures, so the Dalton films made things even worse. With the additon of things like Lethal Weapon, Robocop and Batman, Bond wasn't considered very cool anymore. So after the six year layoff, people were ready once again.

[YOLT]

Allright guys say whatever you say. I say "007 James Bond is a paper thin chracter, so making his more emotional will hurt the series".

[Skin 17]

I liked The World Is Not Enough, I thought that Brosnan really stepped up his game. I really but between TND and GoldenEye I have to go with Tomorrow Never Dies.

[blaze]

Oh man, GoldenEye is a masterpiece. It ranks up there with The Spy Who Loved Me and Goldfinger. His other three are OK, but I love GoldenEye because of its non-stop action and the simple yet wonderful plot. Brosnan at his best! And the opening sequence is brilliant.