arkfinder said:Ok my reason for not liking (never said hate!) is it's just not my cup of tea. He's just sort of a Bounty Hunter who get's the girl.
Dr. Jones is a mans man. Who is better on the fly and getting into and out of bad spots.
arkfinder said:Ok my reason for not liking (never said hate!) is it's just not my cup of tea. He's just sort of a Bounty Hunter who get's the girl.
Dr. Jones is a mans man. Who is better on the fly and getting into and out of bad spots.
Sarika said:Y'know, I was a very different kid to other girls..I actually enjoyed playing with matchbox cars...lol and I still have the silver Astin Martin Bond matchbox car...
I just remembered that...
What you were talking about Montana, made me think of that..
I have been actually watching Bond movies every Saturday night, as one of our tv networks has been hosting them, beginning with one of the best 007's, of all time, Sean Connery's films.
Been enjoying watching them again.
James said:I have to admit to being a little surprised by the response here. I've always loved Bond, but never really thought about judging any of his adventures as "films". To me, this is one of those franchises that can only be rated against itself. The irony of Bond is that what most people hate- the formulaic nature- is also the thing that has allowed it to endure.
James said:In terms of cultural significance, I think the sixties Bonds are the only ones to really capture the essence of what Fleming intended. Much like the novels, those films were cutting-edge, politically-incorrect escapism that introduced the Playboy aesthetic to a mainstream audience. The subsequent entries have all either followed popular trends or found the series paying tribute to itself.
Much like Lucas' archaeologist, James Bond was never intended as a realistic depiction of a working spy. His adventures were fantastical travelogues full of exotic women, megalomaniacal villains, and imaginative threats such as krakens (Dr. No) and rockets (Moonraker). If you wanted realistic spy fiction, you turned to people like John Le Carre, Eric Ambler, and Len Deighton. If you wanted P***y Galore and The Man With The Golden Gun, you sought out Ian Fleming.
James said:This is one reason why I don't really buy the current marketing hype that presents Daniel Craig as the definitive Bond. (I don't have any problem with him in the role- I just don't think it's an accurate claim.) It sounds good, but it's also a theme the producers like to trot out every few years.
In reality, each actor has possessed some aspect of Fleming's character- whether it was Sean Connery's cruelty, Roger Moore's snobbery, or George Lazenby's athleticism. Timothy Dalton was actually closer to the printed Bond than the current films, while Pierce Brosnan even had his share of traits that were eerily close to Fleming. (Recall the beach scene in Goldeneye where he calmly explains that his friend has become his enemy.)
One problem with the current approach is that Fleming's Bond didn't enjoy killing. On the rare occasion where he was ordered to assassinate someone in cold blood (The Living Daylights), he found himself unable to do so. This is an area where they really dropped the ball with the last film- an outing which was also at odds with how Fleming felt about things like personal honor and loyalty. They had a great opportunity to show the character developing into a seasoned professional (which, incidentally, is how the literary Bond began life), but instead chose to go the other way and present him as an inept brute.
James said:To be fair to the producers, unless someone decides to a period film (or tv series) one day, I don't think we will ever see a portrayal of the character that is completely faithful to Fleming's vision. It's simply a product of a radically different time that requires too much updating for today's audiences.
Montana Smith said:Dr. No and From Russia With Love were feeling their way in this new genre, on a limited budget.
Montana Smith said:Craig's brutishness and ineptness was perhaps overplayed in the attempt to create a more realistic character
Montana Smith said:Is there a chronology of movie Bond (the Eon movies) that takes into account the historical placing of the adventures? Is it possible to work them all in?
James said:This takes us back to the fundamental problem that James Bond isn't a realistic character.
...
Producer Michael Wilson understands this key aspect, and has often referred to Bond's world as "a kind of hyper-reality parallel to our own".
James said:It may seem mundane by today's audiences, but to someone commuting to work back in 1953 this was a pretty good male fantasy.
James said:Not really, aside from the rare occasions where they hinted at some loose thread of continuity. For example, Sylvia Trench briefly returns in From Russia With Love; On Her Majesty's Secret Service references several of Connery's missions; Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan each have a reference to Tracy Di Vicenzo; etc. Quantum of Solace was really the first film to be created as a true sequel. (They actually took the concept a little too far- expecting the audience to still have the events of Casino Royale fresh in their memories.)
It's best to just watch them in the order they were released. Even Casino Royale doesn't quite work as a prequel to Dr. No, since it contradicts some of the Connery films.
James said:I think the real secret to approaching Bond is to realize that each film is like a little time machine. When I was first getting into the series, something like Live And Let Die couldn't hold a candle to what was going on in modern action films. But what it could do was take me back to the summer of 1973 and show me what that world looked like. I always found that part of it pretty fascinating.
Is every Indy fan a Bond fan?