I've never watched the movie, but the title song and performance/video thereof is an absolute winner!

Great to hear a positive review for Brosnan, he's the only Bond I've never seen. Honestly I always thought he'd be the ideal pick, going back to Remington Steele years... classy & humorous, somewhere between Connery & Moore. But by the time it happened I had lost touch with 007. I may have to do a marathon like you & catch up!

@rooprect said:

Great to hear a positive review for Brosnan, he's the only Bond I've never seen. Honestly I always thought he'd be the ideal pick, going back to Remington Steele years... classy & humorous, somewhere between Connery & Moore. But by the time it happened I had lost touch with 007. I may have to do a marathon like you & catch up!

One thing I've been enjoying in this exercise is getting to know each Bond actor's portrayal of Bond and finding that I like almost all of them, and it has minimized my appetite for arguing "which is the best." It has become much easier, for me, to identify which one I like the least (although I'm holding that tentatively until I've seen them all, my hypothesis remains it'll be Craig).

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

Great to hear a positive review for Brosnan, he's the only Bond I've never seen. Honestly I always thought he'd be the ideal pick, going back to Remington Steele years... classy & humorous, somewhere between Connery & Moore. But by the time it happened I had lost touch with 007. I may have to do a marathon like you & catch up!

One thing I've been enjoying in this exercise is getting to know each Bond actor's portrayal of Bond and finding that I like almost all of them, and it has minimized my appetite for arguing "which is the best." It has become much easier, for me, to identify which one I like the least (although I'm holding that tentatively until I've seen them all, my hypothesis remains it'll be Craig).

That's a great attitude to have. Love em or hate em, they each have their own unique identity (yes even Lazenby!) and it's fun to see how each incarnation is interpreted.

I suspect after having heard the worst about Craig, you'll find he's not nearly as bad as all that. I'll tell you one thing that made me warm up to his Bond, it's after seeing Daniel Craig guest host on Saturday Night Live. He can do comedy really well! It seems to come naturally for him. So for me, watching his stone faced Bond is a testament to how well the guy can act. Can't wait til you get to those years and let us know how he fits in the Bond spectrum.

Here’s a Bond I bet you’ve never seen…. Craig SNL Bond

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

Great to hear a positive review for Brosnan, he's the only Bond I've never seen. Honestly I always thought he'd be the ideal pick, going back to Remington Steele years... classy & humorous, somewhere between Connery & Moore. But by the time it happened I had lost touch with 007. I may have to do a marathon like you & catch up!

One thing I've been enjoying in this exercise is getting to know each Bond actor's portrayal of Bond and finding that I like almost all of them, and it has minimized my appetite for arguing "which is the best." It has become much easier, for me, to identify which one I like the least (although I'm holding that tentatively until I've seen them all, my hypothesis remains it'll be Craig).

That's a great attitude to have. Love em or hate em, they each have their own unique identity (yes even Lazenby!) and it's fun to see how each incarnation is interpreted.

Yes, even Lazenby!

I suspect after having heard the worst about Craig, you'll find he's not nearly as bad as all that.

I've seen his Bond movies (all of them, I think). But, since I hadn't put in the work to familiarize myself with the scope of Bond, I felt like I wasn't giving him the benefit of enough context. Interestingly, it was Lazenby in OHMSS that made me really FEEL Bond's loss (when Tracy was killed). That totally informs Bond's pain, frustrations, conflict. He longs for love but, in his line of work, he can't afford the vulnerability. So, he keeps it shallow while he commits his "certain set of skills" in service to the Queen. The beginning of Tomorrow Never Dies is a great example, they're all imploring him to "get out of there!" but he knows he can still do something to diffuse the threat, and he's willing to bet his life that he can get it done in time. He's Bond, and what he has to offer just doesn't leave a lot of time for mowing the lawn or shoveling the driveway, dishes or diapers.

I'll tell you one thing that made me warm up to his Bond, it's after seeing Daniel Craig guest host on Saturday Night Live. He can do comedy really well! It seems to come naturally for him. So for me, watching his stone faced Bond is a testament to how well the guy can act. Can't wait til you get to those years and let us know how he fits in the Bond spectrum.

Yeah, I quite enjoyed him in Glass Onion, he certainly has acting chops in general and comedic chops specifically. So, you make a good point that playing the role of Bond as written was work for him, he had to act, and he did nail it, as written. As such, if I don't like him, it's not him, it's the role as written, that interpretation of Bond is one of which I'm not fond. If the Broccoli family signed off on all his releases, it must have met their approval, so, again, I want to learn WHY that interpretation of Bond makes sense, given the degree to which it flies in the face of EVERY OTHER Bond interpretation (as far as I know, and I'm putting in work to expand how much I know, at least, of the movie adaptations - I honestly don't see myself ever getting around to reading any of Fleming's novels.).

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

Great to hear a positive review for Brosnan, he's the only Bond I've never seen. Honestly I always thought he'd be the ideal pick, going back to Remington Steele years... classy & humorous, somewhere between Connery & Moore. But by the time it happened I had lost touch with 007. I may have to do a marathon like you & catch up!

One thing I've been enjoying in this exercise is getting to know each Bond actor's portrayal of Bond and finding that I like almost all of them, and it has minimized my appetite for arguing "which is the best." It has become much easier, for me, to identify which one I like the least (although I'm holding that tentatively until I've seen them all, my hypothesis remains it'll be Craig).

That's a great attitude to have. Love em or hate em, they each have their own unique identity (yes even Lazenby!) and it's fun to see how each incarnation is interpreted.

Yes, even Lazenby!

I suspect after having heard the worst about Craig, you'll find he's not nearly as bad as all that.

I've seen his Bond movies (all of them, I think). But, since I hadn't put in the work to familiarize myself with the scope of Bond, I felt like I wasn't giving him the benefit of enough context. Interestingly, it was Lazenby in OHMSS that made me really FEEL Bond's loss (when Tracy was killed). That totally informs Bond's pain, frustrations, conflict. He longs for love but, in his line of work, he can't afford the vulnerability. So, he keeps it shallow while he commits his "certain set of skills" in service to the Queen. The beginning of Tomorrow Never Dies is a great example, they're all imploring him to "get out of there!" but he knows he can still do something to diffuse the threat, and he's willing to bet his life that he can get it done in time. He's Bond, and what he has to offer just doesn't leave a lot of time for mowing the lawn or shoveling the driveway, dishes or diapers.

I'll tell you one thing that made me warm up to his Bond, it's after seeing Daniel Craig guest host on Saturday Night Live. He can do comedy really well! It seems to come naturally for him. So for me, watching his stone faced Bond is a testament to how well the guy can act. Can't wait til you get to those years and let us know how he fits in the Bond spectrum.

Yeah, I quite enjoyed him in Glass Onion, he certainly has acting chops in general and comedic chops specifically. So, you make a good point that playing the role of Bond as written was work for him, he had to act, and he did nail it, as written. As such, if I don't like him, it's not him, it's the role as written, that interpretation of Bond is one of which I'm not fond. If the Broccoli family signed off on all his releases, it must have met their approval, so, again, I want to learn WHY that interpretation of Bond makes sense, given the degree to which it flies in the face of EVERY OTHER Bond interpretation (as far as I know, and I'm putting in work to expand how much I know, at least, of the movie adaptations - I honestly don't see myself ever getting around to reading any of Fleming's novels.).

If you can read Casino Royale, it will explain (to a certain degree) Craig's version of Bond. It's only 216 pages & a pretty quick read (at least it was for me, it is also the only Fleming work I have read).

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

I'll tell you one thing that made me warm up to his Bond, it's after seeing Daniel Craig guest host on Saturday Night Live. He can do comedy really well! It seems to come naturally for him. So for me, watching his stone faced Bond is a testament to how well the guy can act. Can't wait til you get to those years and let us know how he fits in the Bond spectrum.

Yeah, I quite enjoyed him in Glass Onion, he certainly has acting chops in general and comedic chops specifically. So, you make a good point that playing the role of Bond as written was work for him, he had to act, and he did nail it, as written. As such, if I don't like him, it's not him, it's the role as written, that interpretation of Bond is one of which I'm not fond. If the Broccoli family signed off on all his releases, it must have met their approval, so, again, I want to learn WHY that interpretation of Bond makes sense, given the degree to which it flies in the face of EVERY OTHER Bond interpretation (as far as I know, and I'm putting in work to expand how much I know, at least, of the movie adaptations - I honestly don't see myself ever getting around to reading any of Fleming's novels.).

If you can read Casino Royale, it will explain (to a certain degree) Craig's version of Bond. It's only 216 pages & a pretty quick read (at least it was for me, it is also the only Fleming work I have read).

Hey @bratface, now that you mention it, perhaps it is something I might get around to, even just that one. But, with all on my plate these days, I'll be honest, it most likely will not happen imminently — in the meantime, perhaps you can share an opinion — if Fleming's Casino Royale sets the tone of Bond closer to Craig's version, why did the Broccoli family give us Connery, and Lazenby, and Moore, and Dalton, and Brosnan, before finally getting around to Craig?

You can appreciate, for those of us who never read Fleming, that five Bonds, and umpteen installments over 40 years set a tone, an expectation of what Bond is - international, high stakes yet doesn't take itself too seriously, having time for gags and laughs, big action, exotic scenery, sizzling sexiness...if Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming's novel Bond....OHHH, as I was typing this, a thought popped into my mind...

It's well-documented that Stephen King did not like what Kubrick did to his The Shining. Is it possible that Buccy Broccoli family took Bond in a different direction? I googled it, and found a gem of an answer...https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1641773/james-bond-sean-connery-from-russia-with-love-ian-fleming-scottish This article tells us that Fleming didn't like Connery's casting, BUT fell in love with Connery's portrayal so much so that he changed his novel Bond's history to align with the Broccoli/Connery version.

So, it would seem that the Cubby Broccoli/Sean Connery Bond was adapted from Ian Fleming's novel, but was kind of their own new thing, and that new thing set the standard for Bond.

If this is the right way to understand the history and evolution of Bond, I can anticipate that it might be refreshing to return to the origin of Bond as Fleming created him and see what a few installments of that Bond might have looked like, almost a reboot, if you will. I may thus want to literally forget all the Bonds before Craig and watch his sequences apart from all those who went before. I can see a path forward to appreciating Craig's Bond. Looking forward to testing this hypothesis...but first, I've got to get through Brosnan's four. Two down, two to go!

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It's well-documented that Stephen King did not like what Kubrick did to his The Shining. Is it possible that Buccy Broccoli family took Bond in a different direction? I googled it, and found a gem of an answer...https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1641773/james-bond-sean-connery-from-russia-with-love-ian-fleming-scottish This article tells us that Fleming didn't like Connery's casting, BUT fell in love with Connery's portrayal so much so that he changed his novel Bond's history to align with the Broccoli/Connery version.

So, it would seem that the Cubby Broccoli/Sean Connery Bond was adapted from Ian Fleming's novel, but was kind of their own new thing, and that new thing set the standard for Bond.

I think that's a totally reasonable explanation, and you brought up a great example with Kubrick's The Shining vs King's original. I think the film medium has a way of ingraining character personalities more memorably than words on a page. So when a film adaptation becomes a hit, the author's outta luck. Nicholson's "Jack Torrence" is the one we'll always remember, and if King wanted to write a sequel (where Jack is thawed out lol) then he'd have to take into account that his new readers, and even some old ones, will now be picturing Jack Nicholson.

With the 007 films being such a colossal success, largely due to Connery fleshing out the character, Fleming was forced to lock in step. It's a great example of the artist becoming a slave to the art. At a certain point the character comes alive and becomes his own thing. Short of killing him off, there's not much the original author can do but go along for the ride.

If this is indeed the case, and Craig's 007 is a return to the original Fleming character, it makes me wonder: why now? Why, decades later, would the film's producers suddenly decide to become literary purists?

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@bratface said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@rooprect said:

I'll tell you one thing that made me warm up to his Bond, it's after seeing Daniel Craig guest host on Saturday Night Live. He can do comedy really well! It seems to come naturally for him. So for me, watching his stone faced Bond is a testament to how well the guy can act. Can't wait til you get to those years and let us know how he fits in the Bond spectrum.

Yeah, I quite enjoyed him in Glass Onion, he certainly has acting chops in general and comedic chops specifically. So, you make a good point that playing the role of Bond as written was work for him, he had to act, and he did nail it, as written. As such, if I don't like him, it's not him, it's the role as written, that interpretation of Bond is one of which I'm not fond. If the Broccoli family signed off on all his releases, it must have met their approval, so, again, I want to learn WHY that interpretation of Bond makes sense, given the degree to which it flies in the face of EVERY OTHER Bond interpretation (as far as I know, and I'm putting in work to expand how much I know, at least, of the movie adaptations - I honestly don't see myself ever getting around to reading any of Fleming's novels.).

If you can read Casino Royale, it will explain (to a certain degree) Craig's version of Bond. It's only 216 pages & a pretty quick read (at least it was for me, it is also the only Fleming work I have read).

Hey @bratface, now that you mention it, perhaps it is something I might get around to, even just that one. But, with all on my plate these days, I'll be honest, it most likely will not happen imminently — in the meantime, perhaps you can share an opinion — if Fleming's Casino Royale sets the tone of Bond closer to Craig's version, why did the Broccoli family give us Connery, and Lazenby, and Moore, and Dalton, and Brosnan, before finally getting around to Craig?

You can appreciate, for those of us who never read Fleming, that five Bonds, and umpteen installments over 40 years set a tone, an expectation of what Bond is - international, high stakes yet doesn't take itself too seriously, having time for gags and laughs, big action, exotic scenery, sizzling sexiness...if Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming's novel Bond....OHHH, as I was typing this, a thought popped into my mind...

It's well-documented that Stephen King did not like what Kubrick did to his The Shining. Is it possible that Buccy Broccoli family took Bond in a different direction? I googled it, and found a gem of an answer...https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1641773/james-bond-sean-connery-from-russia-with-love-ian-fleming-scottish This article tells us that Fleming didn't like Connery's casting, BUT fell in love with Connery's portrayal so much so that he changed his novel Bond's history to align with the Broccoli/Connery version.

So, it would seem that the Cubby Broccoli/Sean Connery Bond was adapted from Ian Fleming's novel, but was kind of their own new thing, and that new thing set the standard for Bond.

If this is the right way to understand the history and evolution of Bond, I can anticipate that it might be refreshing to return to the origin of Bond as Fleming created him and see what a few installments of that Bond might have looked like, almost a reboot, if you will. I may thus want to literally forget all the Bonds before Craig and watch his sequences apart from all those who went before. I can see a path forward to appreciating Craig's Bond. Looking forward to testing this hypothesis...but first, I've got to get through Brosnan's four. Two down, two to go!

The 'tone' of the first few Bond movies might be because TPTB wanted something that wasn't so serious? The early (well most of the 60s) 60s were fraught with the 'Cold War, Civil Rights Marches, Vietnam, etc., so maybe 'lighthearted' was the way to go? There are probably a 'million' stories out there about why 'Cubby' Broccoli went the way they did.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Goldeneye starts with a wild stunt - free-diving into the cockpit of a free-falling plane. I mean, talk about wild, right? It also includes a chase scene that was so over the top one can only laugh out loud as Bond commandeers a tank - yeah, you read that right, a tank - and rumbles through the city.

I first watched this with my Dad upon its initial theatrical release, and during this scene, my normally somewhat taciturn father burst out laughing when Brosnan, after breaking through the (stone, brick, concrete?) wall, pauses to . . . STRAIGHTEN HIS TIE!!!

I suppose a British secret agent just must always be sure he looks his dapper best, no matter the situation!

@northcoast said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Goldeneye starts with a wild stunt - free-diving into the cockpit of a free-falling plane. I mean, talk about wild, right? It also includes a chase scene that was so over the top one can only laugh out loud as Bond commandeers a tank - yeah, you read that right, a tank - and rumbles through the city.

Test.

Are you having problems posting comments? I did receive 2 notifications but only 1 is here.

See above. Intended comment posted. It's just that my original reply was included in DRD's quoted text, and I didn't want to appear to be putting words in DRD's mouth. User error on my part.

Also, I cannot believe how fast some of you reply to posts. My original erroneous post, before I deleted it, was only up for a couple minutes.

In your case, bratface, you really should try to be a moderator, your personal misgivings about this website's rules be damned.

And P.S.S.--

The release date for Dune Part 2 has been slightly advanced, to March 1, 2023.

@northcoast said:

See above. Intended comment posted. It's just that my original reply was included in DRD's quoted text, and I didn't want to appear to be putting words in DRD's mouth. User error on my part.

Also, I cannot believe how fast some of you reply to posts. My original erroneous post, before I deleted it, was only up for a couple minutes.

In your case, bratface, you really should try to be a moderator, your personal misgivings about this website's rules be damned.

And P.S.S.--

The release date for Dune Part 2 has been slightly advanced, to March 1, 2023.

I was checking my email when I got the notification (that's why I answered quickly). As for being a mod, no thanks, I have the time but don't want all the aggravation.

What misgivings?

@bratface said:

What misgivings?

In your last reply to the only discussion thread for the 1991 version of The Pit and the Pendulum, you said TMDB had "weird rules".

That's why I said "misgivings".

@northcoast said:

@bratface said:

What misgivings?

In your last reply to the only discussion thread for the 1991 version of The Pit and the Pendulum, you said TMDB had "weird rules".

That's why I said "misgivings".

They do. I was just wondering if there was a particular rule you had in mind.