|
Post by Lux on Jun 17, 2021 6:29:04 GMT
Your idea of Bond was a young Sam Neill who was a nervous wreck during his Bond audition, a nervous inexperienced virgin about to have sex for the first time on mission. Roger gave Bond personality and Antmac I've seen you attempt what you think is humour on the politics forum and I think you need some Roger tips. Roger was comfortable in his own skin and wasn't a tryhard clown. He looked perfectly fine to me in the audition. Of course, as most reasonable people would probably know, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. Once an actor has actually been selected for a job, he or she can relax and focus on getting into the role. Yes, Roger Moore did bring a lot of his own personality to the role of James Bond, just as he did for many of his other roles. Unfortunately, with James Bond, it was not quite as appropriate or successful as it had been with certain other roles. And I think you need to remember that a sense of humour can vary, not just from one country to another, but also from one individual to another. Although who in their right mind would actually believe they can judge the many and varied senses of humour of an entire nation, after a limited number of interactions with a small number of individuals on an internet forum? PS - As for being a tryhard clown, I'm sure you're quite experienced in that field. Roger was obviously successful the man went on to do multiple Bond films so the producers who know a thing or two about what the fuck they're talking about thought differently to some hick Aussie in Rooville. No, Sam was a good looking young man but he looked a mess in his audition, he had the personality of a fish. He did well in the Jurassic Park films later on in life.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 17, 2021 6:42:46 GMT
You can't get any more ridiculous and jump the shark than the modern Bond era. It's totally gods vs. demi gods vs. mortals like never before. That's the real way it's evolved, but no one dares to say that, because no one but me dares to believe that no human is a demi god. Roger Moore era made it more witty, and that made it so we didn't take it seriously. The modern era is retarded, because they do take the exact same things seriously that Moore's Bond films just did in jest. Same for Batman. No one took it serious from the Adam West show. Comical "kapow" fist fights. In fact, there was less shark jumping than in any of the later ridiculous Batman movies. So, if you're saying that they weren't nearly as retarded as modern day Batman and Bond movies, I'll agree, but Batman was total comedy, but Moore got to be in what is undeniably the best of the Bond movies (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME consistently and deservedly gets the nod for the best Bond film ever). The spectacle, adventure, babes, scenery, wit, everything was at its peak in the Moore era. Look at the classics that are in any serious top ten Bond list: The Spy Who Loved me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy. Even the sillier ones with the red neck sheriff were entertaining and full of great Bond elements. You can't say that about the dull unwatchable drudgery of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, movies that are impossible to stay awake through, and which are muddled messes of incoherent garble, so bad in fact that only the most die hard fans would watch the later Bond movies. If anything, Craig's Bond movies look more like West's Batman series, in being incoherent garble, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.I don't agree with you there. Casino Royale is routinely regarded as one of the best Bond films ever made. Skyfall is also pretty good. Are there as fun as Roger Moore's films? Maybe not, but to say they're like the Adam West Batman series is completing missing the mark. There's more character development in Craig's first two films than in Roger Moore's Bond films put together. We see a brash, young rookie 00 agent learn what it means to trust, and when his heart is broken, he turns to full-on rage to try to heal what's broken inside. After several years, he slowly transforms into the traditional James Bond archetype we are familiar with. Yes, there are some dumb moments in Craig's films like the awful editing in Quantum of Solace and Blofeld being his step-brother, but none of Craig's lows are as low as some embarrassing moments during Roger Moore's run. Like Bond gives a sumo wrestler a wedgie and a slide whistle is inserted during an impressive car stunt; all of them were featured in The Man with the Golden Gun. Hahahaha falling for a manipulative woman you've only known for a few weeks who then dies and being heartbroken about that was the most pathetic childish boy's first love thing about Daniel Craig's Bond especially as it's in the MI6 guidance not to fall in love on the job, so yes it was more laughable than anything in Roger's Bond by the fact Roger's Bond approached women/ information not like some little boy having his first pathetic crush in such a dangerous environment with lives and billions of pounds at risk. Daniel's Bond was a grown man and supposed to be competent but came off like a lovestruck Bart Simpson.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 17, 2021 6:54:57 GMT
He looked perfectly fine to me in the audition. Of course, as most reasonable people would probably know, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. Once an actor has actually been selected for a job, he or she can relax and focus on getting into the role. Yes, Roger Moore did bring a lot of his own personality to the role of James Bond, just as he did for many of his other roles. Unfortunately, with James Bond, it was not quite as appropriate or successful as it had been with certain other roles. And I think you need to remember that a sense of humour can vary, not just from one country to another, but also from one individual to another. Although who in their right mind would actually believe they can judge the many and varied senses of humour of an entire nation, after a limited number of interactions with a small number of individuals on an internet forum? PS - As for being a tryhard clown, I'm sure you're quite experienced in that field. Roger was obviously successful the man went on to do multiple Bond films so the producers who know a thing or two about what the fuck they're talking about thought differently to some hick Aussie in Rooville. No, Sam was a good looking young man but he looked a mess in his audition, he had the personality of a fish. He did well in the Jurassic Park films later on in life. I didn't say Roger Moore was unsuccessful in the role, I said I thought he wasn't right for the role. That's my personal opinion, based upon my familiarity with the source material. Simply as adventure films, they're reasonably enjoyable, but as James Bond films, they're rather poor efforts... although THE SPY WHO LOVED ME didn't do too badly, owing mainly to its more serious approach. I've no interest in the opinions of the filmmakers, any more than they've an interest in my opinions. They and I look at the subject from very different perspectives, so it's highly unlikely we'd ever be able to reach a consensus on that particular topic. However, afterwards, they went with a couple of actors who were both far more suited to the role, so on that note, they and I have very similar opinions. Of course, what's got me curious is what's wrong with you? Why are you carrying on like a pissy little Pom? Why are you getting so bent out of shape over the fact that another poster on this message board has a different opinion to you? Are you new to the internet or something? We have different opinions... get over it. As I said before, he looked perfectly fine to me and, in any case, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. And I agree that he did quite well in the JURASSIC PARK franchise... although I preferred him in THE FINAL CONFLICT and REILLY: ACE OF SPIES. Each to their own.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 17, 2021 7:05:48 GMT
Roger was obviously successful the man went on to do multiple Bond films so the producers who know a thing or two about what the fuck they're talking about thought differently to some hick Aussie in Rooville. No, Sam was a good looking young man but he looked a mess in his audition, he had the personality of a fish. He did well in the Jurassic Park films later on in life. I didn't say Roger Moore was unsuccessful in the role, I said I thought he wasn't right for the role. That's my personal opinion, based upon my familiarity with the source material. Simply as adventure films, they're reasonably enjoyable, but as James Bond films, they're rather poor efforts... although THE SPY WHO LOVED ME didn't do too badly, owing mainly to its more serious approach. I've no interest in the opinions of the filmmakers, any more than they've an interest in my opinions. They and I look at the subject from very different perspectives, so it's highly unlikely we'd ever be able to reach a consensus on that particular topic. However, afterwards, they went with a couple of actors who were both far more suited to the role, so on that note, they and I have very similar opinions. Of course, what's got me curious is what's wrong with you? Why are you carrying on like a pissy little Pom? Why are you getting so bent out of shape over the fact that another poster on this message board has a different opinion to you? Are you new to the internet or something? We have different opinions... get over it. As I said before, he looked perfectly fine to me and, in any case, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. And I agree that he did quite well in the JURASSIC PARK franchise... although I preferred him in THE FINAL CONFLICT and REILLY: ACE OF SPIES. Each to their own. You can't see me through the comments you don't know what I'm feeling. Also, an audition is where you know what an actor's strengths and weaknesses are, Sam Neill's weaknesses was being unable to play convincingly a competent adult secret agent but he was successful in convincing Antmac somewhere in the outback, so that's a win for him he can take with him forever.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 17, 2021 8:03:53 GMT
I didn't say Roger Moore was unsuccessful in the role, I said I thought he wasn't right for the role. That's my personal opinion, based upon my familiarity with the source material. Simply as adventure films, they're reasonably enjoyable, but as James Bond films, they're rather poor efforts... although THE SPY WHO LOVED ME didn't do too badly, owing mainly to its more serious approach. I've no interest in the opinions of the filmmakers, any more than they've an interest in my opinions. They and I look at the subject from very different perspectives, so it's highly unlikely we'd ever be able to reach a consensus on that particular topic. However, afterwards, they went with a couple of actors who were both far more suited to the role, so on that note, they and I have very similar opinions. Of course, what's got me curious is what's wrong with you? Why are you carrying on like a pissy little Pom? Why are you getting so bent out of shape over the fact that another poster on this message board has a different opinion to you? Are you new to the internet or something? We have different opinions... get over it. As I said before, he looked perfectly fine to me and, in any case, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. And I agree that he did quite well in the JURASSIC PARK franchise... although I preferred him in THE FINAL CONFLICT and REILLY: ACE OF SPIES. Each to their own. You can't see me through the comments you don't know what I'm feeling. Also, an audition is where you know what an actor's strengths and weaknesses are, Sam Neill's weaknesses was being unable to play convincingly a competent adult secret agent but he was successful in convincing Antmac somewhere in the outback, so that's a win for him he can take with him forever. Through your comments and posts, anyone can see you've got a stick lodged up your arse about something. Blind Freddy could see that you're all pissy and shitty. And that's your opinion about Sam Neill's audition... meanwhile, my opinion is that he looked perfectly fine to me and, in any case, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. And why are you so obsessed with where I live? Thinking of emigrating and becoming a ten pound Pom?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 17, 2021 12:01:08 GMT
Bond is, and always has been always will be, camp. The original Fleming novels might be described as 'the higher camp', and the films more as the lowest-common-denominator camp...and Batman was pointedly designed to be camp from its inception. But Susan Sontag would have been the first to recognize that no matter who played 007, campiness was the raison d'etre of the whole franchise. I wouldn't call Bond "camp" he's literally slept with more women than the average Fred Flintstone. The Bond films are wild crazy fun not camp. I appreciate the like from you but let's not go crazy here. On the scale of "camp" Bond is nowhere near.Not everyone would agree with you there. This piece makes the point a lot more articulately than I ever could (and it's a pretty fun read, besides): www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/007-notes-on-camp#:~:text=Several%20acknowledged%20that%20the%20whole,and%20especially%20from%201962%20onwards.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 17, 2021 15:59:29 GMT
I don't agree with you there. Casino Royale is routinely regarded as one of the best Bond films ever made. Skyfall is also pretty good. Are there as fun as Roger Moore's films? Maybe not, but to say they're like the Adam West Batman series is completing missing the mark. There's more character development in Craig's first two films than in Roger Moore's Bond films put together. We see a brash, young rookie 00 agent learn what it means to trust, and when his heart is broken, he turns to full-on rage to try to heal what's broken inside. After several years, he slowly transforms into the traditional James Bond archetype we are familiar with. Yes, there are some dumb moments in Craig's films like the awful editing in Quantum of Solace and Blofeld being his step-brother, but none of Craig's lows are as low as some embarrassing moments during Roger Moore's run. Like Bond gives a sumo wrestler a wedgie and a slide whistle is inserted during an impressive car stunt; all of them were featured in The Man with the Golden Gun. Hahahaha falling for a manipulative woman you've only known for a few weeks who then dies and being heartbroken about that was the most pathetic childish boy's first love thing about Daniel Craig's Bond especially as it's in the MI6 guidance not to fall in love on the job, so yes it was more laughable than anything in Roger's Bond by the fact Roger's Bond approached women/ information not like some little boy having his first pathetic crush in such a dangerous environment with lives and billions of pounds at risk. Daniel's Bond was a grown man and supposed to be competent but came off like a lovestruck Bart Simpson. You're comparing apples and oranges. Craig's Bond was new on the job and shown little control of his emotions even after being promoted as a 00 agent. Also, he had no way of knowing Vesper was manipulating him. Roger Moore's Bond is definitely more a veteran so he wouldn't have acted the way Craig's Bond did.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 17, 2021 16:23:45 GMT
Hahahaha falling for a manipulative woman you've only known for a few weeks who then dies and being heartbroken about that was the most pathetic childish boy's first love thing about Daniel Craig's Bond especially as it's in the MI6 guidance not to fall in love on the job, so yes it was more laughable than anything in Roger's Bond by the fact Roger's Bond approached women/ information not like some little boy having his first pathetic crush in such a dangerous environment with lives and billions of pounds at risk. Daniel's Bond was a grown man and supposed to be competent but came off like a lovestruck Bart Simpson. You're comparing apples and oranges. Craig's Bond was new on the job and shown little control of his emotions even after being promoted as a 00 agent. Also, he had no way of knowing Vesper was manipulating him. Roger Moore's Bond is definitely more a veteran so he wouldn't have acted the way Craig's Bond did. Hmm he wasn't really new to the job. I mean are you trying to pretend that being an agent for British intelligence a vital global security agency is a job only given to emotionally inept mummy's boys instead of well trained competent applicants who have passed the necessary exams, mental skills and scenarios required for field work? It's MI6 not a youth centre for troubled kids expelled from their schools.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 17, 2021 16:44:30 GMT
You can't get any more ridiculous and jump the shark than the modern Bond era. It's totally gods vs. demi gods vs. mortals like never before. That's the real way it's evolved, but no one dares to say that, because no one but me dares to believe that no human is a demi god. Roger Moore era made it more witty, and that made it so we didn't take it seriously. The modern era is retarded, because they do take the exact same things seriously that Moore's Bond films just did in jest. Same for Batman. No one took it serious from the Adam West show. Comical "kapow" fist fights. In fact, there was less shark jumping than in any of the later ridiculous Batman movies. So, if you're saying that they weren't nearly as retarded as modern day Batman and Bond movies, I'll agree, but Batman was total comedy, but Moore got to be in what is undeniably the best of the Bond movies (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME consistently and deservedly gets the nod for the best Bond film ever). The spectacle, adventure, babes, scenery, wit, everything was at its peak in the Moore era. Look at the classics that are in any serious top ten Bond list: The Spy Who Loved me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy. Even the sillier ones with the red neck sheriff were entertaining and full of great Bond elements. You can't say that about the dull unwatchable drudgery of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, movies that are impossible to stay awake through, and which are muddled messes of incoherent garble, so bad in fact that only the most die hard fans would watch the later Bond movies. If anything, Craig's Bond movies look more like West's Batman series, in being incoherent garble, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.I don't agree with you there. Casino Royale is routinely regarded as one of the best Bond films ever made. Skyfall is also pretty good. Are there as fun as Roger Moore's films? Maybe not, but to say they're like the Adam West Batman series is completing missing the mark. There's more character development in Craig's first two films than in Roger Moore's Bond films put together. We see a brash, young rookie 00 agent learn what it means to trust, and when his heart is broken, he turns to full-on rage to try to heal what's broken inside. After several years, he slowly transforms into the traditional James Bond archetype we are familiar with. Yes, there are some dumb moments in Craig's films like the awful editing in Quantum of Solace and Blofeld being his step-brother, but none of Craig's lows are as low as some embarrassing moments during Roger Moore's run. Like Bond gives a sumo wrestler a wedgie and a slide whistle is inserted during an impressive car stunt; all of them were featured in The Man with the Golden Gun. If one just takes the Craig character, then there is a case for his character. This is true of almost all the 007 films. Bond himself has the macho confidence that is sometimes put into doubt, even in the Moore movies. That much is well done, the way the director times Craig's resistance to the doubt to his confidence. But that's all that is well done. The other characters have zero motivation, just as in Adam West's Batman. They're just clowns doing contrived bits of bad things to innocent people just to do bad things, with no motivation explained. The reason the Craig Bond movies is like the Adam West Batman series isn't because of the hero, but because of the other characters and the story lines and environment. The writers and directors make vain attempts to explain motivation, but fail horribly. In both cases, it's just a muddled mess of incoherent garble. While it's true that all 007 films, and I do mean all of them, magically transport Bond to exotic locations like fairy tale stories, it is only in Craig movies that the director and writer transport him with logical explanation for the motive. He just appears magically where a bad guy is or has been, just as in the Adam West Batman show. I've no complaint on any of the actors. They all just do their job. I do think the way that director and actor time Craig's Bond on his reactions is extremely good. If that's the only thing one looks for, then one is satisfied. Craig does satisfy the "credible character in incredible circumstances", but in order to be a full length movie, other characters also have to satisfy that criteria. That's why the failure of recent Bond movies to do that is what makes them look exactly like the Batman TV series with Adam West.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 17, 2021 21:22:33 GMT
The Moore films are superior in terms of repeat viewings with regards to the Bond franchise. Connery comes close. The Craig films take themselves and the character too seriously in my opinion although I think the only truly bad Bond film was probably Die Another Day. You're not one of those morons that were baffled by the invisible Aston Martin were you? No but I think it’s one of the worst written Bond films. Plus I always thought Brosnan was the worst Bond outside of Craig.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 17, 2021 21:32:27 GMT
You're not one of those morons that were baffled by the invisible Aston Martin were you? No but I think it’s one of the worst written Bond films. Plus I always thought Brosnan was the worst Bond outside of Craig. Then you thought wrong, Vagalyra.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 17, 2021 21:45:27 GMT
You're not one of those morons that were baffled by the invisible Aston Martin were you? No but I think it’s one of the worst written Bond films. Plus I always thought Brosnan was the worst Bond outside of Craig. Why do you dislike Brosnan and Craig? They're the most action packed Bonds.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 17, 2021 22:14:34 GMT
No but I think it’s one of the worst written Bond films. Plus I always thought Brosnan was the worst Bond outside of Craig. Why do you dislike Brosnan and Craig? They're the most action packed Bonds. I grew up with Moore and frequently caught Connerys films on TV. Brosnan himself isn’t bad, but the films are pretty bad, outside of Goldeneye. Craigs films use jump cuts and the pacing is too fast to really enjoy the story. Casino Royale probably has the best pacing and the card game is well done. But I just don’t like modern editing practices for action films. The Bourne films are some of the worst.
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 17, 2021 22:20:51 GMT
No but I think it’s one of the worst written Bond films. Plus I always thought Brosnan was the worst Bond outside of Craig. Then you thought wrong, Vagalyra. What do you think is one of the worst written Bond films?
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 17, 2021 22:46:58 GMT
You're comparing apples and oranges. Craig's Bond was new on the job and shown little control of his emotions even after being promoted as a 00 agent. Also, he had no way of knowing Vesper was manipulating him. Roger Moore's Bond is definitely more a veteran so he wouldn't have acted the way Craig's Bond did. Hmm he wasn't really new to the job. I mean are you trying to pretend that being an agent for British intelligence a vital global security agency is a job only given to emotionally inept mummy's boys instead of well trained competent applicants who have passed the necessary exams, mental skills and scenarios required for field work? It's MI6 not a youth centre for troubled kids expelled from their schools. He was new as an 00 agent. He had been working with MI6 for quite a while, which is clearly indicated when M tells him to his face that she felt "it was too early" for him to promote him. So, she suspected that Bond was not right for the job just yet and Vesper mentions he is egotistical. So, yes, Bond was driven by his emotions in Casino Royale, and after losing Vesper, this sets up the reason why he doesn't get too emotionally involved on his later missions. He is withdrawn emotionally when Silva fatally shoots Sévérine in Skyfall.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 17, 2021 22:54:36 GMT
Then you thought wrong, Vagalyra. What do you think is one of the worst written Bond films? Casino Royale. As mentioned already on this thread Bond falling in love with a mysterious (not even that attractive) woman he's known for weeks jeopardizing his mission and delivering billions to global terrorist groups was gullible garbage.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 17, 2021 23:07:54 GMT
They’re definitely more lighthearted and less grounded Bond films. At least compared to the ones before it.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 17, 2021 23:57:45 GMT
Plus I always thought Brosnan was the worst Bond outside of Craig. I agree with that. I haven't bothered with the Craig films although having seen him in The Golden Compass I thought he would be fine--not if he was being tortured like he was in Elizabeth--he didn't come off well in that one.
I felt Brosnan wasn't a bad choice at first but he's less intense than Moore or Connery or Dalton. I think Dalton was given less than good material in LTK because that one scene where the woman agent tells him he brought the wrong gun to the bar makes him look like a wanker. Very un-Bond-like moment.
Money in the bank-the more Bond movies they make, the more he will deconstructed from the popular image of a knight errant solving problems the globalists can't (or helped create).
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Jun 18, 2021 0:09:32 GMT
What do you think is one of the worst written Bond films? Casino Royale. As mentioned already on this thread Bond falling in love with a mysterious (not even that attractive) woman he's known for weeks jeopardizing his mission and delivering billions to global terrorist groups was gullible garbage. I guess you never read the 1953 novel, huh? It wasn't terrorist funds in the book, however -- it was money for the KGB payroll in France. LeChiffre is the paymaster for Soviet espionage operations, not a banker for terrorists. It is Vesper who "delivers" the money over to the baddies (because she's being blackmailed) -- not Bond. And in both novel & film, she commits suicide. (Poison in the book.) The line, "The bitch is dead now" comes straight from Ian Fleming's typewriter.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 18, 2021 0:25:12 GMT
Casino Royale. As mentioned already on this thread Bond falling in love with a mysterious (not even that attractive) woman he's known for weeks jeopardizing his mission and delivering billions to global terrorist groups was gullible garbage. I guess you never read the 1953 novel, huh? It wasn't terrorist funds in the book, however -- it was money for the KGB payroll in France. LeChiffre is the paymaster for Soviet espionage operations, not a banker for terrorists. It is Vesper who "delivers" the money over to the baddies (because she's being blackmailed) -- not Bond. And in both novel & film, she commits suicide. (Poison in the book.) The line, "The bitch is dead now" comes straight from Ian Fleming's typewriter. I'm talking about the movie not the novel which saw Bond have his security verification authorisation seduced out of him by Vesper thus the banker calling him asking what the fuck was going on as the payment was due.
|
|