Bond 50

All 22 Bond movies on Blu-Ray is on sale for $99 from Amazon.

Deb doesn't think we need it.

-Kevin

Whos your favorite bond actor?
I have to go with Sean Connery 1st.
Then Roger Moore.
The rest I really dont care for.
I still like the Bond movies with the other actors,but it just doesnt seem like a Bond movie without either Connery or Moore.
I guess Im getting older and turning into an old poop. :lol:

Scotty Dog said:

Whos your favorite bond actor?
I have to go with Sean Connery 1st.
Then Roger Moore.
The rest I really dont care for.
I still like the Bond movies with the other actors,but it just doesnt seem like a Bond movie without either Connery or Moore.
I guess Im getting older and turning into an old poop. :lol:

Click to expand...

I like Daniel Craig; I prefer the stoicism he has, as opposed to Roger "Flamboyant Playboy" Moore.

-Kevin

Wife picked up from kmart $5.00 , "On her Majesty's secret service" , we have never seen that on before
1 time George Lazenby

Connery first, the either Craig or Brosnan.

A very underrated Bond film. It was the second Bond film as they rarely show it on cable.
There was a contract dispute between Connery and MGM or a scheduling conflict ( I forget which one it was).


JD

michigander said:

Wife picked up from kmart $5.00 , "On her Majesty's secret service" , we have never seen that on before
1 time George Lazenby

Click to expand...

Scotty Dog said:

Whos your favorite bond actor?

Click to expand...

And now for the important question... Who's your favorite bond girl?

We just finished watching Quantum of Solace, and it was....weird.

-Kevin

Kevin, do you have a linkto that sale on Amazon...just looked and it appears to be about $350.

I jsut saw Skyfall, and I think it absolutely rocks. Probably the best Bond movie, in my opinion.

markkoelsch said:

Kevin, do you have a linkto that sale on Amazon...just looked and it appears to be about $350.

I jsut saw Skyfall, and I think it absolutely rocks. Probably the best Bond movie, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Ah, bummer - it was a limited time deal!

It's still available at the normal price of $349. :yikes:

-Kevin

Sean than Pierce

troj said:

We just finished watching Quantum of Solace, and it was....weird.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I watched it last night trying to catch up so I can see Skyfall -- at the end of Casino Royale, I was like "EFF YEAH JAMES BOND", but at the end of Quantum of Solace it was more of a WTF. Apparently, it was written during the WGA strike and thus there was nobody to tie the loose ends into a story (cite). I feel a little better at least knowing there was a reason for it being so awful.

Im too young for this. I have only seen Craig in the Bond films. Did not care for Q. of S.

daveyfire said:

Apparently, it was written during the WGA strike and thus there was nobody to tie the loose ends into a story (cite).

Click to expand...

David, the grad student in you is showing -- you use citations a lot of what you post.

-Kevin

PS: Especially in the Research threads, it's great that you do -- gives folks a source of more detailed information

JDcluster said:

A very underrated Bond film. It was the second Bond film as they rarely show it on cable.
There was a contract dispute between Connery and MGM or a scheduling conflict ( I forget which one it was).


JD

Click to expand...

FYI... "From Russia With Love" was the SECOND Bond film, after "Dr. NO" which of course was the first. The film series didn't really take off as a PHENOMENON until the release of the third film, "Goldfinger" in 1964.

Connery left the role of Bond because of a combination of factors. First, he was getting somewhat bored with it, and secondly, he was afraid of getting typecast in the role to the point he couldn't get any other work when he eventually got too old for the role and was replaced. Third, he WAS getting a little old for it (not as old as Roger Moore was by a longshot when he left the role), and he wanted to "do something different". Fourth, he realized that the franchise was making a TON of money, and had catapulted him from relatively unknown Scottish actor to a megastar... and he wanted to be payed accordingly. There were some disputes with the producers over what he wanted to be paid to stay on in the role. They were willing to pay him very well but basically when he said he was done, they weren't too broken hearted about it... they'd been doing screen tests and keeping an eye open for a possible replacement for awhile.

Interesting the names that come up as possible Bond replacements, during the several times that they've cast about for replacements for the role as actors either tired of doing the films, or simply got too old to be credible in the role anymore... actually Connery wasn't their first choice for Bond... Cary Grant was... (along with Patrick McGoohan, among others). At various times actors considered for the role (some of whom screentested) include Burt Reynolds, Adam West, James Brolin, and Sam Niell...

To replace Connery, the producers settled on Australian model and acting newcomer George Lazenby. He did one film, and did fairly well in the role, but was convinced that Bond was "anachronistic" in the "hip, women's lib, anti-establishment" 70's. He didn't help matters any by going "hippie" during his contractually obligated publicity tour prior to the movie's release, sporting a shaggy hairdo and generally being uncooperative and hard to work with. Basically, in the end, he was fired and left by mutual consent.

Connery was approached to return to the role, and accepted after negotiating a huge salary for taking the role on again for "Diamonds are Forever" in 1971. He gave his substantial salary to charity as well. He made it clear it was a "one time job" as a favor to the producers and the franchise that had catapulted him to such super-stardom. Supposedly when there WAS some talk of trying to get Connery to do another film around the time production was wrapping on Diamonds are Forever, he said, "never again", which later was adopted as the title to the non-EON pictures remake of "Thunderball" in the early 80's in which Connery starred, opposite Klaus Maria Brandauer and Kim Basinger, entitled "Never Say Never Again".

I personally liked Roger Moore; he was the Bond I grew up with in the theatres during the 70's and early 80's... BUT he was getting pretty long in the tooth the role by the time of his final Bond film, "View to a Kill" in the mid-80's. I liked the Connery films and even Lazenby's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (which was helped immensely by the beautiful Diana Rigg, especially in her skating bunny outfit!) but they seemed a bit dated and "small" compared to the "over-the-top" Moore Bond films, usually replete with megalomaniacs trying to destroy the world-- who can forget Hugo Drax or Karl Stromberg?? But, Moore's reliance on gadgets and humor got to be more and more formulaic and hackneyed as the series continued and by the late 80's it was time for a change.

Timothy Dalton was a capable actor, and his portrayal of Bond was certainly DIFFERENT, and an interesting twist on the character... the films he did, "The Living Daylights" and "License to Kill" had interesting scripts and interesting character development and were well cast in the "Bond girl" and "bad guy" departments, BUT, Timothy Dalton always played the role as surly and downright pissed off to the point he seemed about ready to put his head through a brick wall at every moment... when he DID have a romantic or light-hearted, somewhat humorous scene or response, it seemed forced and unnatural because of the way he played the character in every other scene... while his performance was very good and indeed evoked the 'gritty' sense he was going for, it also made "his Bond" the least likeable of anybody who ever filled the role...

After a false start at taking on the role right before Timothy Dalton was cast, Pierce Brosnan's Bond was probably one of the most anticipated and ultimately most disappointing foray for the Bond character... while Pierce Brosnan's acting and portrayal of the character was immeninently more enjoyable, humorous, and "friendly" than Daltons, and Brosnan was every bit as capable of carrying off the action sequences as Dalton, Connery,and Lazenby had been before them (action was never Moore's strong suit IMHO, but his take on the character avoided that being an issue, honestly), Brosnan's Bond had the deep misfortune of being the victim of the franchise taking a walk off the map, and the writing and stories becoming simply dreadful... Brosnan's first outing, Goldeneye, was quite good and gave high hopes for the series, despite its rather whimsical and unrealistic return to "megalomaniacal" bad guy and over-reliance on "gadgets". At least it was cast well and the story flowed and made somewhat sense, even if it was a bit "larger than life", it was no more so than many of the Roger Moore scripts had been. Brosnan's take on the Bond character made it feel much like an updated version of Moore's Bond had returned.

Sadly, "Tomorrow Never Dies", while okay, just magnified the things that were "wrong" with "Goldeneye" (too many gadgets, too much "over the top" storywise) and while enjoyable was rather "far-fetched" even for the "larger than life" type stories that marked Moore's late 70's films... It was acceptable but a definite falloff from the more "realistic" portrayals of Bond and the stories during the 80's and early 90's...

Brosnan's last two films, "The World is Not Enough" and "Die Another Day" were even sadder... the storyline of "The World Is Not Enough" didn't even make sense, and the ending of it in the nuclear sub's reactor room was positively farcical... seriously, "Dr. NO" in 1961-2 could be forgiven for its somewhat silly portrayal of a nuclear reactor, but there was simply no excuse for the downright comical portrayal of it in "The World Is Not Enough"... it's like the writers had NO interest in even being remotely realistic... the Bond films were firmly set into a course for downright "farcical" stories... At least this film had the absolutely gorgeous Sophie Marceau going for it as a Bond girl (and a villainess at that, and in a black satin lingerie and sexy hose no less!) and the obvious cheesecake attraction of Denise Richards, no matter how unbelievable she was as a nuclear physicist disarming Soviet warheads... but it wasn't enough to make up for juvenile and silly writing...

Brosnan's last Bond film, "Die Another Day", was downright embarrassing... the writing was absolutely pathetic, the story was TOTALLY unbelievable for even a second, and it was so SLOPPY in it's lack of ANY connection with reality that it was simply a FARCE... continuing down the path set by the previous two films, especially "The World Is Not Enough", was turning the Bond franchise into every bit as much a parody of itself as the "Austin Powers" films were... I guess that Brosnan was simply contractually locked into the film, or just wanted the paycheck, or was really high or feeling very "artsy" when he signed on to make Die Another Day, because the script and story was just an embarrassment IMHO. Despite the smokin' hott re-creation of Ursula Andress's appearance out of the sea in a bikini scene from Dr. NO by the beautiful Halle Berry, and the luscious looks and captivating eyes of Rosamund Pike as the Bond girls for the film, "Die Another Day" had to be the absolute low point of the entire series, IMHO... even those beautiful women couldn't save it, and even Madonna's choppy, "techno" hatchet job for a theme song was an abomination... just to round out the complete craptacularness of this film...

THANKFULLY they rebooted the series with Daniel Craig's taking on the mantle of the Bond character... had they continued to follow the rediculous stupidity that passed for scripts on the last couple Brosnan films, it would have probably flushed the franschise and character completely down the toilet for good. It's actually pretty sad that Brosnan was given such complete CRAP for scripts, because he was a very good, very likeable, very CAPABLE actor as Bond... Craig's Bond is very much a return to the Connery-esque type of Bond... very physical (sometimes too much so due to the amazing stunt capabilities that exist today) and very much a cool killer, definitely not the likeable playboy type Bond personified by Moore and to a lesser extent, Brosnan. Craig is definitely more likeable in the role than Dalton was, despite the "edgier, grittier" style both of them evoke; where Dalton just seemed perpetually pissed off at the world and everything and everybody, Craig exudes the sense of a very determined, professional killer, capable of doing whatever the job requires, charm where charm is called for, kicking @$$ and taking names when required, and yeah, enjoying things and suffering some pain along the way... even (gasp) enjoying a bit of HUMOR, and doing it believably, something which Dalton always seemed rather forced... Craig can even be romantic, in a way, much like Connery (something else Dalton seemed very "forced" at), but certainly is less 'romantic' than Moore or Brosnan or even Lazenby managed to be... he's not as "debonaire" as they were either (with the exception of Lazenby who wasn't either-- Moore and Brosnan definitely had the debonaire sophisticate part of the role down).

Personally, I find Craigs films to be probably the most enjoyable films since Roger Moore left the series, and right up there with Connery's "classic Bond" and Moores more realistic stories (For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy). I like the de-emphasis of the gadgets and the return to a more realistic enemy, without all the huge larger than life megalomaniac types... those are fun, BUT, the Brosnan films showed perfectly what happens when that sort of thing is taken TOO FAR...

Craig's films are more story driven and character driven, which is a nice change. Quantum of Solace wasn't quite as good as "Casino Royale", but it was a good movie... "Skyfall" is very good, IMHO... right up there with Casino Royale... and hopefully the next two films Craig is slated for will continue this paradigm...

The Bond films constantly swing back and forth like a pendulum between "larger than life, gadget laden extravaganzas" and "down to Earth character driven stories, sans gadgets and megalomaniacs". Usually the further the pendulum swings to either extreme, tends to be the poorer movies of the series (though usually the "less gadget, more story" ones are still good films, but tend to not perform as well at the box office, which sets the pendulum swinging back toward the "more gadgets" type films... and when those go "over the top" (like Die Another Day) things get really ugly until the pendulum swings back... Fortunately we seem to be somewhere near the middle of the "all character, no gadgets" type stories... (for now).

Later! OL JR