The James Bond Film Discussion Thread (With Bonus Lazenby!)

[cardinal biggles]

I think the Brosnan series was weird in that GoldenEye was great but it works as, almost feels like, both a first and last film, feels kind of introductory but almost more conclusive. Then, aside from Brosnan looking different from that in all the sequels, TND went in such a very different direction, I think TWINE feels much more like a sequel (in part from bringing back Coltrane but not just from that) and then DAD like an interesting follow-up to TWINE.

I think Tomorrow Never Dies (or Tomorrow Never Lies) would have probably been better and more interesting if it had been later, like from 2004-2008, when more people knew and cared about Rupert Murdoch and China was more visibly becoming a rival superpower although maybe I am understating how much that was already so in 1996-1997.

I think for the British audience the allusions to Rupert Murdoch probably hit harder than it did for Americans. Fox News had only just launched in 1996, and his other U.S. media holdings weren't seen as that big a deal. Whereas he'd been acquiring British papers since the late '60s and launched BSkyB in 1990.

 

[the G-man]

I think three years is doable, but I do agree that's likely the minimum (unless they were to film two back to back)

Marginally related (and possibly better suited for the Indiana Jones discussion thread), but while watching Last Crusade this weekend, I was reminded of/struck by the fact that the three original Indiana Jones movies came out in a mere eight year period (1981-1989). There's something to be said for that timeline.

 

[cooleddie74]

And five Star Trek movies in just a ten-year period (1979-89)!

 

[Tallguy]

I think for the British audience the allusions to Rupert Murdoch probably hit harder than it did for Americans. Fox News had only just launched in 1996, and his other U.S. media holdings weren't seen as that big a deal. Whereas he'd been acquiring British papers since the late '60s and launched BSkyB in 1990.

Also at the time the All Powerful News Mogul would have been Ted Turner. With a little bit of Bill Gates thrown in.

 

[cooleddie74]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Starkers]

Marginally related (and possibly better suited for the Indiana Jones discussion thread), but while watching Last Crusade this weekend, I was reminded of/struck by the fact that the three original Indiana Jones movies came out in a mere eight year period (1981-1989). There's something to be said for that timeline.

I'm not sure if it was just that films were quicker to make then, certainly I suspect pre and post production were much shorter, but also the whole process of promotion seems to have be shorter as well.

Still amazes me they could pump out a film a year in the 60s, no wonder Connery burned out.

They can still churn films out quickly but they tend to be low budget horror films, not big budget blockbusters.

Of course maybe if they made taut 2(ish) hour films rather than the somewhat bloated two and a half hour + long epics it'd help.

 

[Tallguy]

Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were managing a film a year for a while there.

I'm not sure every other year is a bad pace. But anything less than every three is just silly.

 

[Starkers]

Harry Potter had a lot of standing sets etc, and the LOTR films were all filmed at the same time!!

Look at the MI films, the only reason 7 and 8 are coming out only two years apart is because they were filmed back to back. Films generally take far longer to produce these days.

 

[cooleddie74]

The two BTTF sequels were filmed simultaneously.

 

[suarezguy]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I like Octopussy quite a bit, average but enjoyably average, FYEO a real good finale to Moore Bond but then Octopussy a nice epilogue/additional finale, Moore yes too old but almost more impressive for doing so well in action scenes at that age, also that it feels so openly for all ages including weirdness of title (especially with and as it is the title does feel pretty innocent, just from the animal, any other meanings to go over kids' heads). Then AVtaK was just, in part from Moore being way too old, unfortunate embarrassment.

 

[Starkers]

Octopussy, or Carry on Bond as I like to call it.

 

[Tallguy]

I don't think they could have done anything different or better after For Your Eyes Only than what they did. And I don't have much use for Moore's Bond in general. But Octopussy and (especially) A View to a Kill are almost pointless.

FYEO would have been a great last film for Moore in the series.

I wish Moore could have triangulated his not wanting to be as mean as Connery was with being a man who didn't WANT to be that guy but who had to do those things anyway because that was his job and he was doing something important. Because from FYEO it seems he might have been good at it.

(Funny that he didn't want to kick the car off the cliff in FYEO but he had no trouble letting the fellow fall to his death after losing his grip on Bond's necktie in The Spy Who Loved Me. Which I always thought was far more cold-blooded and chilling.)

I still have not finished No Time to Die, but have ANY Bonds gone out on a high note? (NO, Lazenby doesn't count!)

 

[Starkers]

Depending on your viewpoint, Dalton?

FYEO should have been Moore's last film.

 

[Tallguy]

Depending on your viewpoint, Dalton?

Yeah. That's debatable. But you certainly can't say he wore out his welcome.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Octopussy, or Carry on Bond as I like to call it.

I am convinced that the main reason they cast Patrick Macnee was to make Roger look young by comparison

 

[Tallguy]

I am convinced that the main reason they cast Patrick Macnee was to make Roger look young by comparison

Is Moore still the oldest Bond? 57 when AVtaK was released, right?

The only other one in the running is Craig who is only now 56. (They haven't cast a Bond younger than me YET.)

Whoa. Brosnan didn't make it to 50!

Mind you, Keanu Reeves was 59 when John Wick 4 came out and Tom Cruise will be SIXTY-THREE when the next Mission: Impossible is released.

* Most ages listed without looking at what month they were born in. Except Roger.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Moore turned 57 while they were filming AVTAK, and was still that age when the film opened in May 1985.

Craig was 51 when filming on NTTD wrapped, and was 53 when the film was finally released.

 

[cooleddie74]

Moore just looked a whole lot older because, well, he was born in 1927 and Daniel Craig was born in 1969. The Greatest Generation versus Gen X.

 

[Starkers]

Yeah. That's debatable. But you certainly can't say he wore out his welcome.

I think Licence to Kill is the best of all the Bonds' final films, I guess they didn't know it is was his final films when they made it mind you.

Not sure if they'd decided DAD would be Brosnan's last film until after it was made

 

[Starkers]

Moore just looked a whole lot older because, well, he was born in 1927 and Daniel Craig was born in 1969. The Greatest Generation versus Gen X.

Connery looks much older than the 32 years he was when he made Dr No, and Lazenby was 28 when he was cast!