Ordinary Day

I have a love/hate relationship with the prose, myself. There are some fun elements in the books--and I see a lot of the book Bond in Craig's version. There are also quite a few good plots.

But then I hit certain passages in the novels that make me cringe and go "OH RIGHT, these were written fifty years ago, weren't they?"

Part of me halfway wishes someone would do a decent novelization of the script of the new movie, since I really rather like that version of the story a lot better. As that is not going to happen, I'll have to settle for buying the DVD when it comes out. Oh darn. ;)

From:

janne.livejournal.com

I'll have to settle for buying the DVD when it comes out. Oh darn. ;)

It's a hard life! I've started drooling over the collected James Bond dvd's that come in that metal briefcase thing myself, but then again -- that wouldn't come with the newest movie, and if it can't be a complete collection I might as well wait. (Unlikely as it is that there will be a 'complete' JB in my lifetime!)

From:

Yeah, really. As long as the movies make money, I'm sure the franchise will be around for some time to come. So a definitive Bond collection would be awfully hard to do. I could more see doing volumes of the prior Bonds, though. A Connery Collection, a Moore, a Brosnan. Maybe another one to cover Lazenby, Dalton, and some of the obscurer Bond-related stuff.

But I am totally buying Casino Royale when it comes out, and I may even go for a third viewing in the theater.

From:

Caveat lector: I haven't seen the new flick yet. We parental units have limited access to these "movies" of which you speak, but Casino Royale is the next one I plan to see in an actual theatre.

Further background: as a teenager I watched my dad's video collection of the entire James Bond series to that time during my recovery from wisdom teeth extraction. Since then I've seen the newer ones as they've come out.

So, not having seen Craig yet, Brosnan is my current favorite Bond. Although that could be sentimental attachment from Remington Steele days. I also like Connery - and Lazenby, who I think gets an undeserved bad rap for a remarkable performance in a moving rôle.

Growing up, Roger Moore was Bond, but since the first Moore film I saw was 1979's Moonraker, he got off to a bad start with me. Not that it wasn't a fun film, and who isn't happy about Jaws getting the girl, but way, way out at the campy end of the spectrum. I'd like to see a more serious and faithful adaptation of the book (updated but not bowlderized).

From:

ravyngyngvar.livejournal.com

I agree with a lot of what you say. Moonraker was in fact my first Bond, too. At that young and impressionable age I thought it was a lot of fun, but I've since come to see it in the context of what came before and what came after.

Actually, after Die Another Day, I thought that the Bond series had gone back to exactly the same stage as Moonraker. In the last few movies they'd gone so far to try top the previous one in effects and gadgets that they ended up getting completely ridiculous (in Moonraker it was everybody going to space and shooting each other with Star Wars style laser weapons, in DAD it was invisible cars). So I had my hope that they'd follow it with a much more down-to-Earth movie this time, like they did then with For Your Eyes Only. Although FYEO takes more from the short story Risico than the titular story.

I can't really pick favorites, but I agree that Lazenby got an undeservedly bad rep. Yes, he was an unusually sentimental Bond, but hey, it was an unusually sentimental script (and probably the closest to Fleming's original of all the movies).

I haven't seen Casino Royale yet. It's got its Norwegian premiere tomorrow, but everything's sold out, so it'll probably be a few days. But I have read the novel. I know what Janne means by Bond being a bastard. Well, he's never been quite as bad in any of the other books I've read, but I do wonder how closely the movie will follow the book.

From:

Well, I should clarify that while Brosnan is my favorite Bond, his movies are not my favorites of the franchise by any stretch. I did enjoy Goldeneye, but after that it went downhill rather quickly.

And I thought I had seen Die Another Day, but I don't remember any invisible cars. Maybe I blocked it out.

From:

solarbird

I am INVEENCIBLE!

From:

I have seen all four Brosnan!Bonds, and must admit that the fourth really did rather suck. It's the only one I didn't go buy. And Goldeneye remains my favorite of the set.

From:

I'll confess to loving Tomorrow Never Dies, but rather more for Michelle Yeoh than for the plot.

From:

Michelle Yeoh is, I must admit, awfully fabulous. :D

From:

There's quite a bit of the book in the movie, albeit updated to fit a modern timeframe. The plot is almost entirely intact.

More than that I will not say, since spoilers, but I will point up to my comment to Janne that part of me really wishes somebody would do a decent novelization of the new movie script, since I really like that version of the story--and that version of Bond--a lot better than the actual book. ;)

From:

Oh, I'm right there with you on sentimental attachment to Brosnan!Bond, thanks to Remington Steele. It's Brosnan that got me watching Bond flicks in the first place, and prior to Craig, he's been the one I've actively enjoyed the most. That said, I will also add that the earliest Connerys (the ones I've actually seen) are very cool, and Connery's Bond up until Craig seemed like the closest to the Bond in the books. I haven't quite decided yet whether I think Craig is closer to book!Bond--I need to watch Goldfinger again.

I also need to give Lazenby a decent shot. I think I've seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but damned if I can remember anything about it. I know my friend

mamishka approves of that one. :)

I've never cared for Moore, though I honestly can't remember if I've seen any of his Bond flicks all the way through.

From:

OHMSS featured Bond getting married. To Diana Rigg. It's rather memorable.

And they panned Lazenby for playing it too sentimental. It's a love story! The only one in any of the Bond fiction, I believe, and a good demonstration of why that's the case, but nevertheless I don't see how you play an in-love 007 without sentimentality. He's James Bond, not Mr. Spock.

From:

Bond almost asks Vesper Lynd to marry him in Casino Royale, as I can attest having just re-read that one. ;) And now that I've glanced at summaries of the later books again, yeah, I remember that Bond actually does get married in them.

And there's a very pertinent line out of the book that is extremely pertinent to the new movie, too: "Like all harsh, cold men, he was easily tipped over into sentiment."

From:

ravyngyngvar.livejournal.com

Another thing you might want to prepare yourself for about OHMSS. For a while during the movie we get Bond parading about in a kilt. What? For five movies and one more to come, Bond has been played by a Scot, and it's the Australian who gets the kilt! :)

From:

Hee! That is pretty funny. ;)

I read (on the Wikipedia page for James Bond, I think it was) that Fleming approved so much of Connery's portrayal that he wrote being part Scottish into Bond's official background. Which is pretty neat. I wonder what tartan Lazenby gets to wear.

From:

stickmaker.livejournal.com

David Niven. :-)

Of course, the most effective Bond was Woody Allen. Nobody expected him to be competent. ;-)

From:

So why haven't you voted on the poll yet, hrmmm? And here I put Niven on the list JUST FOR YOU. ;)

From:

rosepurr.livejournal.com

Caveat: I haven't seen the new Bond yet.

From:

Do you plan to? :)

From:

rosepurr.livejournal.com

Oh, yes!

From:

Woot! I'll look forward to seeing your impressions. :)

From:

spenceraloysius.livejournal.com

I also have not seen the new Bond due to being parentally obligated to be with children. I must wait for it to show up on video.

From:

Totally understandable!

From:

I would argue that who plays bond is almost irrelevant.

The villains are far more important.

A mediocre bond + a good villain beats out a good bond + a mediocre villain every time.

From:

You do have a point about the villains! But I need me a good Bond too for superior appreciation.

Which is of course why Goldfinger is the best Bond film ever. ;)

From:

Sure, because it had cool bad guys and a good bond. There are enough good bad guys that you can use Bond as a tie breaker ;)

I think the poor bad guys did Brosnan in. Goldeneye was a good start. The guy with diamonds in his face sort of recalled older bond villains, but did it poorly.

A media mogul however, does not a good villain make, for example.

I'd probably rank Connery as my favorite, but it's hard to separate the movies form the Bonds, and the movies (to me) are more dependent an a cool villain, and a story that doesn't outright suck. (a cool villain will mask a mostly silly story, but it has to have at least something going for it)

Moore doesn't have a chance (to me) because of the horrible stories/villains.

From:

Yeah, the media mogul dude didn't do it for me as a villain either; what made Tomorrow Never Dies for me was Michelle Yeoh. :)

Amusingly enough we caught the tail end of The Spy Who Loved Me on the Spike channel a little while ago this afternoon. I've never seen that one, but just from seeing the ending alone I was alternating between cringing and laughing out loud.

Clearly, I am going to have to do another poll for favorite Bond films!

From:

ravyngyngvar.livejournal.com

Grr. Spent half an hour replying here, and then Opera crashed on me. One more time.

First, it would be easier for me to vote if I could rank them. I can't pick just one.

Actually, I like The Spy Who Loved Me. The whole idea of someone wanting to destroy the world just so he can rule whatever is left is obviously ridiculous, but so long as that has been the plot of several Bond films, I think TSWLM is the best of them. Way ahead of Moonraker, obviously, but also even of You Only Live Twice.

The bad guy is only so-so, but his henchman Jaws more than makes up for that. His appearance at the Sphinx is just so cool, and I think both the locations and the action scenes rate very high. OK, you're not supposed to think much about it. It's a testosterone-filled fun ride. :)

I must admit that TSWLM was the first time I really noticed the hype surrounding a new Bond film. Since I wasn't old enough to see it, I did what I could and read the novelization and the Mad Magazine parody, and longed for the real thing. It took a while after I got old enough before it actually was released again, and there was always the danger that I'd hyped it up in my mind.

But it did deliver.

From:

*giggle!* As I remarked to

kisanthe last night online, yeah sure fine, all the Bond films are pretty silly, but some are way sillier than others. ;)

I remember the Moore films coming out during my childhood years, yeah. I never saw any of them in the theater that I can recall, though.

From:

spenceraloysius.livejournal.com

Goldfinger has the best villian line ever!

From:

spenceraloysius.livejournal.com

Villain, even.

From:

It DOES. ^_^

From:

::sigh:: I'm going to have go and see this film, aren't I? When they unveiled Craig, I cringed, and having seen the trailer I cringed even more. Put the man in a tux and he looks like a bouncer at a dingy club somewhere in Essex - he has no hint of style or class that I've seen. I said no way would I pay money to see that film, but with reviewers and friends all agreeing it's wonderful, I can't hold out.

I adore Brosnan. Even though I grew up with him, Roger Moore was never a real Bond, but I didn't worship Connery the way so many people seemed to either. Brosnan was a genuinely good actor, and managed to be a Bond with weaknesses, unlike Connery, but not in a way that became annoying. Pity he didn't get better scripts for his films. And better co-stars (apart from Judi Dench, of course, who's wonderful!) - with the exception of Michelle Yeoh, the casting of the women was awful.

From:

Craig is definitely more... blue-collar than his predecessors, yes. That's been called out in various reviews. However, as the film progresses there is definitely a transition towards some style. ;) There's very much a sense of Craig's Bond being what Bond was before all his rough edges were polished off. It'll be real interesting to see if this trend continues into his next films.

I've only seen the earliest Connerys and I really like Goldfinger a lot--though this may just be because that movie has a superior villain and plot in general. ;) I am not genuinely sure whether I'd call Connery my favorite, though--just because as a big Brosnan fangirl thanks to Remington Steele, I am very partial to him.

Re: the women in the films, Judi Dench kicks ass in the new one. So does Eva Green as Vesper Lynd. If that helps! I'd absolutely recommend giving the new flick a chance, though maybe you might want to do it with a matinee if you're dubious. ;)

From:

One of these days, I'll have to see if I can my hands on Remington Steele. The concept intrigues me, in a cheesy way, and I'd be interested to see what he was trapped in that we got the awful Timothy Dalton as Bond instead. And nothing with a younger Pierce Brosnan can be entirely bad XD

From:

mamishka and I both are huge RS fans, so I think either of us could happily set you up with some DVDs to borrow. Though right now I've only got the first season. ;)

Also, mmmmm younger Pierce Brosnan! Though for maximum swoon value, second or third season Steele is best.

From:

OK, I give up. Why does everyone hate Dalton's Bond? I thought he did a fine job, and he was given better material than Moore or Brosnan had to work with...

From:

I liked Dalton's Bond for the most part. Less gadgety, more badass on his own.

The drug one would have been much better if the villain were something else. Seemed too much like a Bond does Miami Vice to me.

I think a lot of people assume because he only did two it was because he sucked. And not because he was always plan B (in place of Brosnan).

From:

Personally, I just don't think he has any charisma. He looked the part, he could talk the part, but he was missing the zing - and that's the difference between greatness and mediocrity in the acting career. Nothing he did wrong, nothing he could change, but he wasn't right for a role that depends so much on force of personality.

From:

with the exception of Michelle Yeoh, the casting of the women was awful.

What, Denise Richards as an astrophysicist didn't seem believable?

Was Teri Hatcher's half hour of life in a throwaway rôle not a good use of her talent?

And I can only imagine that Halle Barry's turn as Jinx was at least as good as her version of Catwoman!

Clealry, you, sir, are far too picky.

:)

From:

What, Denise Richards as an astrophysicist didn't seem believable?

Please, she was a nuclear physicist! And the youngest PhD with extensive field experience ever to set foot in a foreign country doing work important for national security, but that only means she was one of those super geniuses who study maths at Oxford at 15, right?

Teri Hatcher's role got a hatchet job in the editing suite because the test audiences hated her so much. Since her irritating voice and mannerisms drove me up the wall in Lois and Clark, I can't imagine why....

From:

As far as women casting. It's usually been pretty crappy if you look at the acting abilities when you get right down to it. (there were certainly exceptions though).

It's just more noticeable now because the parts themselves actually require some acting ability.

From:

parabasis.livejournal.com

I voted for Connery almost without thinking, though upon further reflection, I'd split my vote between Connery and Brosnan, as I liked them both very much. What did it for me, though, was the lack of quality / believeability of the scripts Brosnan got stuck with as time went by (as has already been mentioned above). Not even Halle Berry could drag me to see the last invisible car flick, and I sat through all of the Moore films so I have some tolerance for trying material. :)

Eva Green is pictured on the mailed-home versions of Entertainment Weekly, and I have to say after viewing those pics of her and Daniel Craig, I had to really convince myself I'm enough of a fan to go see the film. Blonde Bond indeed! However, they are much more attractive on screen, and much more convincing. Whoever took that cover photo should live somewhere quietly in shame that it ever saw the light of day.

That said, I think I actually liked the new movie. The opening action sequence with the spider-monkey guy, that was amazing just for the stunt guy. And at least Craig has down the 'blank Bond stare' that says "I mean business," "I will have you now," "I will shoot you now" and just about anything else he vocalizes. So it worked for me. Plus, Dame Judi, as always, was amazing. :)

From: