Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Captain Nebula, May 26, 2013.
More spam. More warning.
That is a powerful, accurate comparison; the Moore Bond--in many ways--was Bond in name only. The trappings might seem similar, but the defining character, heart and aura which made the character an international popular cultural legend (thank you, Mr. Connery), was nowhere to be found in the Moore films--and for every sound reason.
The Moore films continued, but at the end of it all (A View to A Kill), no one thought the Moore run came close to the power of the Connery performance and films.
I don't think this is real camp like Moore was. This is probably more like the Brosnan era if you want to compare it to Bond than anything. Particularly the first 3 films. But I think this film had some good set up the first part of the film. If it followed through on that and made Khan a more developed villain in a 3rd movie instead of a reverse TWOK, we probably wouldn't get as many people that don't like this film. I think the characters represent their legendary counterparts. There are issues here and there and there are some things that the writing isn't quite hitting right. But to me the only thing better would be if we had a new series.
Moore has his own following and a lot of people(I'm not one) like him as their favorite Bond though.
I'm one of them.
I assume a lot of his fans from "The Saint" thought of Moore's Bond as the same character, but now with gadgets.
Nope, the Original cast are both Connery and Moore. TOS= Connery. Films= Moore.
So, does that mean TAS=Lazenby?
I think the analogy might be on shaky ground, at that point.
Hey, I liked OHMSS :P
OHMSS is the best Bond as a "film." I think this is because of Lazenby. I don't know that the beautiful sentiment and irony that carried over from the book would have really translated well had it been Connery.
I liked On Her Majesty's... also. I think Lazenby did a fine job and it would've been better if he had done Diamonds, too.
I probably should have included the winky, though I think the analogy was already a little wonky.
Haven't read the book, but I love the film. It might very well be the best Bond film. And let's not forget Diana Rigg. It would have been nothing without her.
I wouldn't call OHMSS the best Bond film, but it is very polished. The first 45 minutes of so are great. When the second act starts things get silly with the dopey women, the allergy clinic and the virus omega that will affect the entire planets population. In the novel it was only going to effect the UK. The films dials it up to the entire world. Then the third act with it's epic chase scenes and finale at Piers Gloria put the film more in step with the drama of the first act. For me at least.
I'd say new Trek is closest to Daniel Craig era. With Star Trek 2009 being the Casino Royale of it's respective franchise. Gone are most of the tropes of the previous era (Rick Berman Trek/Pierce Brosnan tongue and cheek Bond). Replaced with a serious that takes the canon and forms films that are identifiable with today's 21st century audiences.
Also Dalton and Moore fan 4 Life
Yes, DAF would have been massively improved if it was starring Lazenby, and written with his portrayal of Bond in mind. We needed his revenge on Blofeld for what he did to Tracy, and what did we get? A comical, cheesy, camp farce with Blofeld in drag. I think Diamonds is possibly the nadir of the franchise.
As for the Abrams Trek reboots, I can see what people are getting at. They are like Star Trek's answer to the Daniel Craig era. They went back to basics, back to the source (TOS; and Ian Fleming's novels respectively)
Its cool seing Kirk and crew again onscreen. He's the character w/ spock and McCoy that made STAR TREK. So, to me it cool, plus it allows the younger kids to get into it with younger actors. It may be hard to relate to the older original crew in those films.
I love the original TOS, but the safest bet was to go with a recast of the original crew. As long as its a good story and well made, then either a new crew or re cast would've been fine with me. But to really make it STAR TREK at its core those characters are the iconic crew most people reference.
So any new good Star Trek is cool with me. I doubt that another Next Geraration or "Typhon Pact" type film would have done nearly as well. And a whole new crew in that TNG / ds9 (Stardate 50000.0 or something era; the one which started on screen around 41292.2ish in TNG season 1. We saw 15 years brought us to the time of the TNG movies and Deep Space Nines/ VGR's end. That timeling now continues ten plus years in the books i understand. See how confusing it is to explaion where we are to the general audience? )
I think putting the original crew in space with new missions is a cool idea.
Separate names with a comma.