• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

Montana said:
yeah good point…I’m just guessing but did Adam West’s Batman overlap with it?
Click to expand...
West's Batman overlapped with Connery's run in the 60's, funny enough!

When tastes changed as much as they did in the 70's (what a gross decade), the audience embraced Moore as Bond just as they embraced the rest of the changes around them. Granted, a decade had passed, but Moore's Bond movies were mostly box office smashes one after the next.

Consider that Moore's first Bond (Live and Let Die) made $162M at the box office in 1973. Man With The Golden Gun (which I think is awesome) somehow dipped to $97M (hard to understand, maybe something else was going on when it was released in '74?). But then the next four all made between $185m and $210M (until View To A Kill dipped to $150m). By comparison, Dalton's first turn made $191m a full ten years after Spy Who Loved Me did almost the same, and then his next one fell to $156m, which barely beat View To A Kill (and handily beat Golden Gun), but no other Moore flick. Adjusted for inflation, those numbers must've been immensely disappointing for the producers, which explains why Dalton only got to make two.
 
Montana said:
They have said they’re doing a reinvention of the character or something to that effect….🤞🏼
Click to expand...
I mean, changing the actor is always the reinvention, and moviemaking becoming better and better in the meantime to go along with it.

I can't see them changing the character in any material way.
 
Broccoli confirmed that they're at least two years away from starting production on the next instalment in the series because they're in the process of “reinventing” the character.

“It’s a reinvention of Bond,” Broccoli told Deadline. “We’re working out where to go with him, we’re talking that through."
Click to expand...
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I'm not even going to bother googling who that is.
Click to expand...
OMG you don't know who David Mitchell is? Seek out "Peep Show" a TV series he did with comedy partner Robert Webb and a young Olivia Colman or Upstart Crow, a sitcom about William Shakespeare. He's brilliant, but he's not Bond material at all.



And one with a James Bond vibe.
 
Last edited:
Montana said:
Nah, they’ve specified they’re taking the character in a different direct than Craig’s



that’s weird given how much their changed the character relative to past Bonds with Craig.
Click to expand...
They changed the character to mold to the contours of the actors. After the Brosnan films, I remember reading that the producers said the films' tech and gadgetry got away from them, that it became silly with invisible cars and kitesurfing away from satellite lasers. So they wanted to take the films back to basics where tech didn't play such a huge part in the story, and they also wanted Bond to be grittier. The only real difference between Craig and Brosnan (apart from the looks) is that they made Bond more rough and tumble, resetting back to Connery.

But is the character of Bond all that different? When I really pick it apart, I don't think there's much different. The action scenes are the same really (just updated for the time period to match where Bourse and MI went), but then in the talking/romance scenes, you have Craig being more gruff whereas Brosnan was more suave. Bond is still the same Bond though. Craig was always seen as a return back to the Connery Bond, while Brosnan was a continuation of the Moore Bond.

So, I don't see much of a reinvention in the character before. The films were definitely different from one actor to another, and the actors certainly looked different, but Bond is Bond. For them to reinvent the guy, I don't think they have much wiggle room before their changes turn Bond into something else. I'd imagine they don't want to mess with Bond the character very much.

And if they do, by casting some snot nosed fart who spends his time practicing dances on tiktok when not on duty, then fuck me, there goes this franchise too.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
They changed the character to mold to the contours of the actors. After the Brosnan films, I remember reading that the producers said the films' tech and gadgetry got away from them, that it became silly with invisible cars and kitesurfing away from satellite lasers. So they wanted to take the films back to basics where tech didn't play such a huge part in the story, and they also wanted Bond to be grittier. The only real difference between Craig and Brosnan (apart from the looks) is that they made Bond more rough and tumble, resetting back to Connery.

But is the character of Bond all that different? When I really pick it apart, I don't think there's much different. The action scenes are the same really (just updated for the time period to match where Bourse and MI went), but then in the talking/romance scenes, you have Craig being more gruff whereas Brosnan was more suave. Bond is still the same Bond though. Craig was always seen as a return back to the Connery Bond, while Brosnan was a continuation of the Moore Bond.

So, I don't see much of a reinvention in the character before. The films were definitely different from one actor to another, and the actors certainly looked different, but Bond is Bond. For them to reinvent the guy, I don't think they have much wiggle room before their changes turn Bond into something else. I'd imagine they don't want to mess with Bond the character very much.

And if they do, by casting some snot nosed fart who spends his time practicing dances on tiktok when not on duty, then fuck me, there goes this franchise too.
Click to expand...

the amount of contorting you’ll do to avoid admitting you were wrong, is staggering.
 
Montana said:
the amount of contorting you’ll do to avoid admitting you were wrong, is staggering.
Click to expand...
Every time you disagree with something, it doesn’t mean you need to attack a different opinion. The Bond character was always a cold killer who could seduce women. Each actor has injected a different amount and kind of humor to the role, and a different type of toughness, and that’s really the primary difference between them. I don’t see reinvention there, just shifting the character a bit to exploit the best qualities of each actor that came after Connery. Not sure what they can do (that wouldn’t be bad) other than just turn the dial up or down on humor and toughness depending on who the next guy is that they pick.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Every time you disagree with something, it doesn’t mean you need to attack a different opinion. The Bond character was always a cold killer who could seduce women. Each actor has injected a different amount and kind of humor to the role, and a different type of toughness, and that’s really the primary difference between them. I don’t see reinvention there, just shifting the character a bit to exploit the best qualities of each actor that came after Connery. Not sure what they can do (that wouldn’t be bad) other than just turn the dial up or down on humor and toughness depending on who the next guy is that they pick.
Click to expand...

Post in thread 'OT: Movies/TV Shows'
https://www.forumice.com/threads/ot-movies-tv-shows.23409/post-3737263
 
Just came across this:



I swear, Lazenby must've played "Bond" more outside of an actual Bond movie than any other Bond actor. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top