bjmdds wrote:The only thing I did not like about TMWTGG was Nick-Nack. For some reason, this film did not connect with viewers.
Put yourself in 1974 and imagine what Bond was to people. Connery was tremendously popular in the 60s as Bond and two other actors attempted but never reached the same popularity. The third actor however is getting a second Bond film, yet audiences are still not used to Roger Moore's kiddie friendly Saturday Morning Cartoon interpretation of Bond. Once again, a Bond film is rejected. However they would embrace TSWLM, which had the same tone as Roger Moore's first two films, except with a larger scope provided by Lewis Gilbert.
Who knows why they suddenly embraced him at that point. Audiences are fickle. You never know what's gonna please them unless it features a guy in spandex climbing on walls and pirates.
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
bjmdds wrote:The only thing I did not like about TMWTGG was Nick-Nack. For some reason, this film did not connect with viewers.
Put yourself in 1974 and imagine what Bond was to people. Connery was tremendously popular in the 60s as Bond and two other actors attempted but never reached the same popularity. The third actor however is getting a second Bond film, yet audiences are still not used to Roger Moore's kiddie friendly Saturday Morning Cartoon interpretation of Bond. Once again, a Bond film is rejected. However they would embrace TSWLM, which had the same tone as Roger Moore's first two films, except with a larger scope provided by Lewis Gilbert.
Who knows why they suddenly embraced him at that point. Audiences are fickle. You never know what's gonna please them unless it features a guy in spandex climbing on walls and pirates.
It's a bit of an odd-ball, TMWTGG. The script is inconsistent, and at times the regular characters all seems to be annoyed with each other, suffering from a serious bout of PMT. This applies to Moneypenny, Q, M and Bond himself - with Moore stepping out of character and suddenly turning nasty on occassions.
Perhaps this reflected Cubby and Harry's suffering off-screen relationship at the time, who knows.
Skywalker wrote:Your generally well regarded on their if you dislike Sir Rog, Hate DAD and consider PB to be the worst Bond.
I find that a false generalization of MI6. People who like Moore and Brosnan are well accepted as long as they don't pull a Thrice
Right.I mean,I'm not a Pierce Brosnan fan-I mean,I don't love him the way that some people there do but to each his/her own.
Generally, I think that people are *fairly* respectful of each other's opinions,but there are occasionally slagging matches.And they have gotten ugly.
That's a factor on why many internet fights ensue. People like Thrice keeps trying to put down Craig with poor taste while at the same time contradicts himself
That's putting it mildly!
He'll say "Craig sucks because his first scenes were in the restoom" while his favorite Bond, Brosnan, ALSO had his first scenes in the restroom and completely loses the argument, hence why everyone calls him stupid. And Brosnan007 displays ignorance by saying "I only saw the Brosnan Bonds because everything else before sucks."
To say nothing of his flip flopping on whether he likes Daniel Craig or not
Because these members get so much attention and cause a lot of flame wars, the generalization of every MI6 member not welcoming Brosnan fans has become generalized. That's the way it is, but you should open your eyes and realize that it's only five or less members, not every Brosnan fan.
I'm all for the Brosnan fans being there.I could care less who people's favorite Bond is.What gets old is Thrice turning a LOT of threads into Brosnan vs. Craig ones.
MOO7RE and Chandler Bong have expressed their opinions on Moore and Brosnan being their favorites, and they don't get treated unfairly. Hell, Bong considers DAD his absolute favorite and no one gives him crap, and when they do, it's usually on a friendly note such as "Oh you and your crappy movies, we still like you though Bong".
Exactly.I might not agree with them but they're good people.
bjmdds wrote:The only thing I did not like about TMWTGG was Nick-Nack. For some reason, this film did not connect with viewers.
Put yourself in 1974 and imagine what Bond was to people. Connery was tremendously popular in the 60s as Bond and two other actors attempted but never reached the same popularity. The third actor however is getting a second Bond film, yet audiences are still not used to Roger Moore's kiddie friendly Saturday Morning Cartoon interpretation of Bond. Once again, a Bond film is rejected. However they would embrace TSWLM, which had the same tone as Roger Moore's first two films, except with a larger scope provided by Lewis Gilbert.
Who knows why they suddenly embraced him at that point. Audiences are fickle. You never know what's gonna please them unless it features a guy in spandex climbing on walls and pirates.
It's a bit of an odd-ball, TMWTGG. The script is inconsistent, and at times the regular characters all seems to be annoyed with each other, suffering from a serious bout of PMT. This applies to Moneypenny, Q, M and Bond himself - with Moore stepping out of character and suddenly turning nasty on occassions.
Perhaps this reflected Cubby and Harry's suffering off-screen relationship at the time, who knows.
Oh I forgot about those. A lot of them were very out of character. Moneypenny suddenly snapping at Bond and then saying "darling" in a seductive tone was just weird.
I did find the whole aspect of Bond being annoyed by a Bond girl to be quite refreshing. Usually it was Bond always liking the girl and then occasionally (like Pussy Galore) would give Bond the cold shoulder. However, that all crashed once Bond started saying "Shall we shag now?"
I did like the bit where Bond tells Goodnight to contact London and find out who owns a green Rolls Royce.
Goodnight: "A green Rolls?"
Bond: "Ugh, a green Rolls Royce! There can't be too many of them in Hong Kong."
I thought TMWTGG was OK, but the story was quite weak...............and even Cubby Broccoli admitted that of all the Bond films he made.....he would in hindsight of liked to of re-written TMWTGG.
I thought Chris Lee was great in the film, as Bonds nemesis..........but the
Solex agitator subplot was very weak.
I always thought of TMWTGG as being in the same tone of LALD but not as polished a film..........even JW Pepper was not quite as good.
Basically i think TMWTGG was a somewhat rushed production, trying to capitalise on the success of LALD...........you've only got to look at the release dates between these two films to clarify this.
EA
ps HNY.........still been reading every ones posts here over XMAS, just been waiting for Bond 22 to start production, so we can have some new topics to talk about.
Speaking of LALD, I was just on the very road last night in Manhattan, NYC,on the FDR Drive South at the exact strip of highway they filmed the "Whisper" car dart scene. It is hard to believe it has been now 35 years since it was filmed there. TMWTGG was the only yearly back to back Moore Bond film. I guess Eon tried to pull a Connery sequence with Moore , but it did not go over well;however, 3 years later he was welcomed back, so who knows, maybe it was Nick-Nack as a villain that did the film in?
Arthur Brain wrote:I thought TMWTGG was OK, but the story was quite weak...............and even Cubby Broccoli admitted that of all the Bond films he made.....he would in hindsight of liked to of re-written TMWTGG.
I thought Chris Lee was great in the film, as Bonds nemesis..........but the
Solex agitator subplot was very weak.
I always thought of TMWTGG as being in the same tone of LALD but not as polished a film..........even JW Pepper was not quite as good.
Basically i think TMWTGG was a somewhat rushed production, trying to capitalise on the success of LALD...........you've only got to look at the release dates between these two films to clarify this.
EA
ps HNY.........still been reading every ones posts here over XMAS, just been waiting for Bond 22 to start production, so we can have some new topics to talk about.
Are you pleased so far with where Forster wants to go with the exploration of Bond's inner psyche EA?
Skywalker wrote:Your generally well regarded on their if you dislike Sir Rog, Hate DAD and consider PB to be the worst Bond.
I find that a false generalization of MI6. People who like Moore and Brosnan are well accepted as long as they don't pull a Thrice
Right.I mean,I'm not a Pierce Brosnan fan-I mean,I don't love him the way that some people there do but to each his/her own.
Generally, I think that people are *fairly* respectful of each other's opinions,but there are occasionally slagging matches.And they have gotten ugly.
That's a factor on why many internet fights ensue. People like Thrice keeps trying to put down Craig with poor taste while at the same time contradicts himself
That's putting it mildly!
He'll say "Craig sucks because his first scenes were in the restoom" while his favorite Bond, Brosnan, ALSO had his first scenes in the restroom and completely loses the argument, hence why everyone calls him stupid. And Brosnan007 displays ignorance by saying "I only saw the Brosnan Bonds because everything else before sucks."
To say nothing of his flip flopping on whether he likes Daniel Craig or not
Because these members get so much attention and cause a lot of flame wars, the generalization of every MI6 member not welcoming Brosnan fans has become generalized. That's the way it is, but you should open your eyes and realize that it's only five or less members, not every Brosnan fan.
I'm all for the Brosnan fans being there.I could care less who people's favorite Bond is.What gets old is Thrice turning a LOT of threads into Brosnan vs. Craig ones.
MOO7RE and Chandler Bong have expressed their opinions on Moore and Brosnan being their favorites, and they don't get treated unfairly. Hell, Bong considers DAD his absolute favorite and no one gives him crap, and when they do, it's usually on a friendly note such as "Oh you and your crappy movies, we still like you though Bong".
Exactly.I might not agree with them but they're good people.
Is the enigma known as YOLT on any other sites that you know of Katied? For him to stay on MI6 is puzzling.
Quite frankly,I don't know why Thrice is tolerated every times he stirs sh!t. The mods at MI6 claim they won't ban someone,even if they're annoying as Thrice is.I think they need to rethink that policy,obviously
AFAIK, he doesn't post at any other boards,but I think he would get a cyber beatdown if he acted there way he does at MI6.
Arthur Brain wrote:I thought TMWTGG was OK, but the story was quite weak...............and even Cubby Broccoli admitted that of all the Bond films he made.....he would in hindsight of liked to of re-written TMWTGG.
I thought Chris Lee was great in the film, as Bonds nemesis..........but the
Solex agitator subplot was very weak.
I always thought of TMWTGG as being in the same tone of LALD but not as polished a film..........even JW Pepper was not quite as good.
Basically i think TMWTGG was a somewhat rushed production, trying to capitalise on the success of LALD...........you've only got to look at the release dates between these two films to clarify this.
EA
ps HNY.........still been reading every ones posts here over XMAS, just been waiting for Bond 22 to start production, so we can have some new topics to talk about.
Are you pleased so far with where Forster wants to go with the exploration of Bond's inner psyche EA?
Its difficult to say at the moment, as we know so little about the film.......
but i do think delving into Bonds psyche will appeal to the audience.
Incidently i wonder what Forster means when he says there will be some surprises in Bond 22!!
So do I EA. I believe he means 'provocative' themes and/or scenes, given his last film, The Kite Runner. I think Bond will tread in uncharted waters with Haggis and Forster. As an aside, can everyone identify the "2" future Bond girls from this 1963 movie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sku8_fkF ... re=related
bjmdds wrote:So do I EA. I believe he means 'provocative' themes and/or scenes, given his last film, The Kite Runner. I think Bond will tread in uncharted waters with Haggis and Forster.
Personally, I wouldn't draw any conclusions about Bond 22 based on The Kite Runner, they're two different films that happen to have the same director. If we had followed this logic in the past, we would have concluded that TWINE was going to be about Bond fighting poachers in Africa* because it shares a director with Gorillas in the Mist or that YOLT was going to recast Bond as a jack-the-lad who makes cheeky asides to the camera because Lewis Gilbert had previously directed Alfie.
*=a story I wouldn't mind seeing, come to think of it.
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
And BJ, I don't understand why you don't listen to what I tell you, but you are not gonna know what you're gonna get by judging Forster's other works. All of them a very different and Forster has spoken on interviews about why he wants to do Bond is because it's something new and challenging for him.
He probably won't come back for Bond 23 judging from what he said and his work unless he becomes very extremely interested in doing another Bond film, which will probably end up being a little different from 22.
From a creative perspective, that's probably the best thing for Bond, especially after 45 years. The last thing you want is for the series to run out of ideas and rehash old ones while disguising them as "traditional" such as gadgets and Goldfinger-clones, especially after the Brosnan era was aping at the Moore OTT films like The Spy Who Loved Me (DAD being the most obvious).
An admitted 'rookie action' director for his first time outing in a Bond film? I still believe they will go on unchartered waters with TBM, or else, why hire such a director?
bjmdds wrote:An admitted 'rookie action' director for his first time outing in a Bond film?
EVERY action director had to do their first. Christopher Nolan was known for psychological thrillers before he did Batman Begins and he pulled it off well.
No director is born with the skills to directing action movies. I rather have Forster than say the director of STOP! OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT!
bjmdds wrote:A novice director in this genre cutting his teeth on a Bond film? Risky.
This a vibe I keep getting, but it seems like if your favorite Bond contender was in this film, you'd have no problem with Forster. Yet because Craig is in it, everything must fail from director all the way to a boom operator's assistant who serves coffee.
Not accusing of such, but I always get that vibe from you. At least people like Skywalker show some optimism yet you doom and gloom. As if even if an experienced action director was up for Bond 22 you'd try to look for something wrong and exploit it non-stop by questioning every member like "is this what you want? what will you do if he does this?" You did that even with the unannounced title saying "they haven't got a title, something must be utterly wrong" even though it is not uncommon for Bond films to get a title while in the middle of shooting or finishing.
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
bjmdds wrote:A novice director in this genre cutting his teeth on a Bond film? Risky.
This a vibe I keep getting, but it seems like if your favorite Bond contender was in this film, you'd have no problem with Forster. Yet because Craig is in it, everything must fail from director all the way to a boom operator's assistant who serves coffee.
Not accusing of such, but I always get that vibe from you. At least people like Skywalker show some optimism yet you doom and gloom. As if even if an experienced action director was up for Bond 22 you'd try to look for something wrong and exploit it non-stop by questioning every member like "is this what you want? what will you do if he does this?" You did that even with the unannounced title saying "they haven't got a title, something must be utterly wrong" even though it is not uncommon for Bond films to get a title while in the middle of shooting or finishing.
I have to agree with Stocks here, bj. I get the impression that the likes of Kristatos and Skywalker are still open minded about Bond 22, even if they don't like the actor, but you are just looking for any angle you can find to knock Bond 22, even slagging off the BO figures of Craig's other films, in some way hoping this will have a knock-on-effect with Bond 22.
I also wonder if you would still have the same doubts about Forster, had Brosnan been in this film.
bjmdds wrote:An admitted 'rookie action' director for his first time outing in a Bond film? I still believe they will go on unchartered waters with TBM, or else, why hire such a director?
Neither John Glen nor Peter Hunt had directed a film before when they directed their first (and, in Hunt's case, only) Bond film. Michael Apted had never directed an action film before when he directed TWINE. That's why God created second unit directors. And you talk as if going into uncharted waters was automatically a bad thing. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing something new, as long as you don't lose sight of what made the Bond films great in the first place (which I think CR was guilty of doing to a certain extent).
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
bjmdds wrote:An admitted 'rookie action' director for his first time outing in a Bond film? I still believe they will go on unchartered waters with TBM, or else, why hire such a director?
I with you on this one BJMDDS. Eon have their stunt-teams and don't feel obliged to take a punt on an action director. With all the talk of following on from CR and pushing that approach further I expect another dry reading of James Bond with some anguished lip wobbling from Daniel Craig. Forster is an ok middlebrow director but not the most exciting name they could have come up with. Still, I'm sure when the film does arrive the Craig fanboys will act as though it's Gone With the Wind.
As an aside, can everyone identify the "2" future Bond girls from this 1963 movie? 
