Main > Everything Else

New Bond Movie

<< < (4/9) > >>

shmokes:
I think Roger Moore is the worst bond, including Timothy Dalton.  They may as well have called in National Lampoon's For Your Eyes Only, National Lampoon's Moonraker.  They were freaking retarded.  He'd do ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- like be skiing down a mountain, chased by baddies on snowmobiles and do a 360 off a lip so he could knock the gun out of a bad guy's hands with the tips of his skis.  Plus Roger Moore is a horrible horrible actor with a single unchanging wooden expression which he uses to convey every possible emotion.  Just.  So.  Bad.

I loved them when I was a kid, but I liked Full House and Family Matters too.  I don't think my opinion back then counts for much anymore.

Haven't seen this new one.  Hoping to this weekend.  Not sure if I'll be able to get a babysitter.  I think Casino Royale was excellent.

danny_galaga:

--- Quote from: protokatie on November 15, 2008, 09:15:46 pm ---Nah, Operation double 007 is the best one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Connery


 >:D

--- End quote ---

Neil Connery? learn something new every day!

Grasshopper:
I’m not a fan of the Roger Moore era Bond films, but I sometimes think it’s a little unfair to compare Moore’s films with Connery’s because the filmmakers were aiming for something completely different.

It’s a bit like comparing the camp Batman TV series of the sixties with the modern Batman films. IMHO the TV series is hilarious, and I’m also a big fan of the films. But it makes no sense to compare the two because, apart from the superficial similarity of being based on the same comic strip, they’re actually completely different genres.

Even by the mid sixties Bond was looking old fashioned. I mean seriously, how many people go to a casino wearing a tuxedo? Even in the fifties it wouldn’t have been that common, and it definitely would have seemed old-fashioned in the flower-power sixties. So by the seventies the filmmakers had pretty much no option but to play Bond in a tongue-in-cheek way.

However, we’ve now essentially gone full circle. The Bond universe is now so anachronistic and quaint that it has become impervious to changes in fashion. Like superheroes, Bond essentially lives in a world of his own where different rules apply. We don’t question the fact that Batman dresses up as a bat, and fights villains dressed as clowns, scarecrows etc. because it makes perfect sense in the batman universe. For the same reason we don’t question Bond dressing up in a tuxedo and fighting mysterious super villains trying to take over the world. It’s just what he does.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: Grasshopper on November 16, 2008, 10:20:51 am ---
fighting mysterious super villains trying to take over the world. It’s just what he does.


--- End quote ---

Actually, that's something that I've often said made Casino Royale so good.  The villain didn't want to rule the world or write his name on the moon with a giant laser beam.  He just wanted have yachts and and sex with beautiful women, like anyone else.  He was still just over-the-top enough to be slightly ridiculous, but not absurdly so.  He cried blood, but it was explained away as a medical condition, so it was especially funny when Bond mocked him for it to his face.

Grasshopper:
I think the last two Batman films were good partly for the same reason. Obviously you’ve still got the inherent ridiculousness of men dressing up as a bats and clowns. However, the villains seemed far more like real people with genuine motivations and emotions than they did in the earlier films. You could just about imagine such people existing in the real world.

Also, the technology that Batman uses to give the impression of having super powers is just about plausible if you don’t think about it too much.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version