Bond 23 - Skyfall
Discussion
JonnyFive said:
Got to be honest, I'm 23.. So have only grown up with Brosnan as Bond, and I've never really taken interest in the older Bond films. I perfer Craig over Brosnan any day.
I think whoever you see play Bond first will become likely to become your favorite, unless your first film is OHMSS!vixen1700 said:
MX7 said:
I think whoever you see play Bond first will become likely to become your favorite, unless your first film is OHMSS!
Live and Let Die was my first, so I'd beg to differ on that point. 
JonRB said:
vixen1700 said:
MX7 said:
I think whoever you see play Bond first will become likely to become your favorite, unless your first film is OHMSS!
Live and Let Die was my first, so I'd beg to differ on that point. We watches Skyfall on DVD again over the weekend. Having thought it was a pile of crap the first time round, I'll happily stand corrected.
IMO, it's still not a patch on Casino Royale and the baddy still reminds me of a more camp version of David Walliams, but it was a lot better than I thought when we originally watched it in the cinema.
IMO, it's still not a patch on Casino Royale and the baddy still reminds me of a more camp version of David Walliams, but it was a lot better than I thought when we originally watched it in the cinema.
schmalex said:
We watches Skyfall on DVD again over the weekend. Having thought it was a pile of crap the first time round, I'll happily stand corrected.
IMO, it's still not a patch on Casino Royale and the baddy still reminds me of a more camp version of David Walliams, but it was a lot better than I thought when we originally watched it in the cinema.
I watched it last night and wasn't overly impressed....I'll give it another shot before it gets put on the dusty shelf.IMO, it's still not a patch on Casino Royale and the baddy still reminds me of a more camp version of David Walliams, but it was a lot better than I thought when we originally watched it in the cinema.
JonRB said:
Indeed. It's faithful to the book, the evil plan is actually plausible, it's a great story. Frankly, if Connery had starred as Bond rather than Lazenby, then people would be hailing it as one of the great Bond films.
Agreed - although there are moments in that film where Lazenby, perhaps entirely by accident, seems more convincing than Connery ever would.I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Twincam16 said:
Agreed - although there are moments in that film where Lazenby, perhaps entirely by accident, seems more convincing than Connery ever would.
I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Oh come on, who wants a wimpy, in touch with his emotions Bond? I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Connery was Bond when Fleming was on set, we KNOW what Bond's supposed to be and Lazenby's wooden cutout with realistic baffled expression and tears was not it.
Fleming's Bond was the kind of gung-ho, laugh in the face of danger commando he worked with in WW2, with a sheen of sophistication and downright scoundrelness that Fleming himself aspired to and (to a degree) lived by.
I'd agree with the comment about OHMSS being hailed as one of the greats if Connery had been in it, it's a good film spoilt by a dire Bond.
M
Mr Roper said:
fatpasty said:
Rollcage said:
TheHeretic said:
I like OHMSS. 
It's certainly the most faithfull to the books, that's for sure.what's not to like.....
Explosions, evil headquarters, car chases, fit women, one legged skiing, guns, Telly Savalis.
marcosgt said:
Twincam16 said:
Agreed - although there are moments in that film where Lazenby, perhaps entirely by accident, seems more convincing than Connery ever would.
I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Oh come on, who wants a wimpy, in touch with his emotions Bond? I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Connery was Bond when Fleming was on set, we KNOW what Bond's supposed to be and Lazenby's wooden cutout with realistic baffled expression and tears was not it.
Fleming's Bond was the kind of gung-ho, laugh in the face of danger commando he worked with in WW2, with a sheen of sophistication and downright scoundrelness that Fleming himself aspired to and (to a degree) lived by.
I'd agree with the comment about OHMSS being hailed as one of the greats if Connery had been in it, it's a good film spoilt by a dire Bond.
M
im said:
marcosgt said:
Twincam16 said:
Agreed - although there are moments in that film where Lazenby, perhaps entirely by accident, seems more convincing than Connery ever would.
I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Oh come on, who wants a wimpy, in touch with his emotions Bond? I'm thinking of the scenes in the Swiss village when Blofeld's men are hunting him down (Connery would have been all tight-lipped and heroic, silently offing them all, whereas Lazenby looks genuinely frightened), and the final scene (can't imagine Connery's Bond crying, somehow).
This is all because Lazenby needed closer step-by-step direction, whereas Connery could have been left to his own devices. However, Connery's Bond wouldn't have shown that depth of emotion (I'm thinking of the scene in Thunderball where he's attempting to escape during the Junkanoo - it's comparable to the Alpine village scene in OHMSS, and yet not once do you ever think he's anything other than 100% in control of the situation, and yet how realistic is that, especially after he's shot in the leg?)
Connery was Bond when Fleming was on set, we KNOW what Bond's supposed to be and Lazenby's wooden cutout with realistic baffled expression and tears was not it.
Fleming's Bond was the kind of gung-ho, laugh in the face of danger commando he worked with in WW2, with a sheen of sophistication and downright scoundrelness that Fleming himself aspired to and (to a degree) lived by.
I'd agree with the comment about OHMSS being hailed as one of the greats if Connery had been in it, it's a good film spoilt by a dire Bond.
M
Also, in Fleming's books, Bond isn't a cold-hearted, robotic killer. He's utterly tortured inside and blanks it out with hard drinking and increasingly reckless gambling. His emotions in the book of OHMSS are quite accurately portrayed by Lazenby, and as the books were filmed out of sequence, it's actually her death that really eats him up inside and turns him into the sadist he appeared as from the start.
I suppose that's the problem with the way Bond was written as opposed to filmed. Fleming evolved the character from cocky, snobbish, slightly insubordinate ex-Navy type in Casino Royale to haunted, tortured, rather bitter killer post-OHMSS. In the books of You Only Live Twice and The Man With The Golden Gun, he has a real deathwish.
In that sense, one of the most accurate portrayals of Bond is actually Timothy Dalton in Licence To Kill. That film follows the plot of the novel of The Man With The Golden Gun rather closer than the film of the same name (replace sugar with cocaine and the train with a convoy of tankers, but the setting and themes are the same and Robert Davi's character Franz Sanchez seems closer in spirit to Francisco Scaramanga than Christopher Lee), and the idea of Bond as a vengeful, spite-filled character with scant regard for his orders is extremely accurate.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff