Skyfall (aka Bond 23)

[iron.jedi83]

A defibrillator and epipen aren't gadgets. However, the way he uses the defibrillator is not realistic at all. A defibrillator will not shock you if it detects a heartbeat. And if you overrode those settings somehow, sending the shock while you're conscious with a beating heart would stop your heart and kill you. However, comparing that to the gadgets from the Moore-Brosnan era is a reach and flat out silly nitpicking.... An invisible Aston Martin is probably the reason they decided to reboot. I like Brosnan's first three movies well enough, but I HATED his last one. The fencing scene was cool but that's about it.

I don't miss the gadgets. I love how brutal Craig is. It definitely is more in line with Fleming's original character and the way Connery played the character.

a defibrillator does deliver a shock if it defects two types a heart rhythms, ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. the device shocks so that the heart stops and resets itself to normal rhythm

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Roger Moore. Seriously, nobody does it better. While he has the reputation of being the campiest and lightest Bond, for me he was the most well-rounded: Ruthless when he needed to be, capable of pathos and human warmth, killing only because he had to, and possessed of more natural charm than anyone else in the world. Seriously, watch an interview with him. At 84, he's even more Bond now than he is in his films!

Connery was a sex-machine killer who always had a one-liner handy. Bad-ass and still the man who created the cinematic Bond, but not a whole lot of introspective character moments. Not a criticism, just the way he played it.

Lazenby did alright in his film despite not having the training.

Dalton was fantastic when it came to everything but the swagger and sex appeal. Fleming's Bond. Duty first.

Pierce was all about the "pushy" as Connery would put it. It came first, before duty. Charm, swagger in spades.

Craig is fantastic in the action scenes, and has charisma, but I seriously don't think he brought anything new to role other than a superheroic bod and blond hair. I like him, but he ranks just above Lazenby on my list.

 

[CelticPredator]

Moore was only good in 3 films. That's it.

 

[thenammagazine]

Moore was only good in 3 films. That's it.

And those weren't even Bond films.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Moore was only good in 3 films. That's it.

Even when his old ass was running around A View to a Kill, I was never under the impression he was phoning it in or letting himself go like Connery in his later Bonds. I still enjoy watching Moore for Moore even in his weakest entries.

And those weren't even Bond films.

Explain yourself. They're the same formula as ever other Bond film, feature some of the most memorable movie villains ever, and no one can objectively deny that Moore kicks ass other than saying "he was too old" and "he wasn't mean like Connery".

 

[thenammagazine]

Explain yourself. They're the same formula as ever other Bond film, feature some of the most memorable movie villains ever, and no one can objectively deny that Moore kicks ass other than saying "he was too old" and "he wasn't mean like Connery".

The misplaced, cheesy humor, his horrible Furley karate, the annoying combover... and laser guns. Though, to his credit, he was a better bond "look-wise" than Dalton. My intro to Bond was Octapussy and I hated it. Even as a kid I thought it was cornball cheese. Thankfully, I caught Never Say Never Again on HBO as a kid and was introduced to Connery as Bond. Arguably his worst Bond film, but one, I still believe, is better than the whole of Moore's run.

 

[CelticPredator]

^ pretty much that.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

The films may have been a lighter tone (but to be fair, OHMSS' ending aside, the films were never that dark to begin with. Even the first two Connery's are filled with tongue in cheek fun and humor,) but Moore still gave the most balanced portrayal. Even when he literally becomes a clown in Octopussy, the disarming the bomb sequence is still suspenseful.

And at least he could get away with a combover and not a variety of toupees like Connery did since Dr. No.

But how does Dalton not fit "looks wise"? Out of all the Bond's he probably fits Fleming's description the closest, sans scar.

 

[meanstreak]

Saw the new trailer on imax last night. Looked amazing.

 

[thenammagazine]

The films may have been a lighter tone (but to be fair, OHMSS' ending aside, the films were never that dark to begin with. Even the first two Connery's are filled with tongue in cheek fun and humor,) but Moore still gave the most balanced portrayal. Even when he literally becomes a clown in Octopussy, the disarming the bomb sequence is still suspenseful.

And at least he could get away with a combover and not a variety of toupees like Connery did since Dr. No.

But how does Dalton not fit "looks wise"? Out of all the Bond's he probably fits Fleming's description the closest, sans scar.

When Moore dressed as the clown in Octo, it defined his career as Bond. Connery's run is by and large THE quintessential portrayal (at least before Craig), so popular opinion disagrees with you there, regardless of how high you choose to pedistal Moore Hell, his follow-up to Orion's Never (View) couldn't even beat Connery's last portrayal despite lacking the title "official." As for Dalton, I think it was the movies that made him look better than he was, given they were some of the rawest stories. But he, himself, whom I call the Dirty Bond, always seems like more of a sleazebag, than the debonair spy.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Don't get me wrong, Connery is excellent. I just feel Moore's reputation is unjustifiably tarnished. Some of his entries may not have been the strongest, but when you make seven Bonds, you aren't making all of the creative decisions. And to be fair, Octopussy came out the same year as Never and kicked its ass in both reviews and box office, so there is that.

I love both of Dalton's films, and agree he wasn't the smoothest Bond, but I don't count that against him. Fleming's Bond could certainly be an arrogant sleazebag, and was more that than the swaggering sex machine we're used to.

 

[thenammagazine]

Don't get me wrong, Connery is excellent. I just feel Moore's reputation is unjustifiably tarnished. Some of his entries may not have been the strongest, but when you make seven Bonds, you aren't making all of the creative decisions. And to be fair, Octopussy came out the same year as Never and kicked its ass in both reviews and box office, so there is that.

Doesn't count. It came out in June and Never came out in October. So it would've been the follow-up that mattered, which was View.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Or View could just be a weak film (which it was,) and the audience was getting tired of Bond (the franchise would be dead two films later.) I always liked it though. Older Moore and scary Grace Jones aside, it has a great score and Walken is fun to watch.

I've heard this analogy used: Bond movies are like sex and pizza. Even when they're bad, they're still pretty good.

 

[CelticPredator]

Not really. A View to A Kill is trash. So is Die Another Day.

The weaker Bond flicks can be passable. But once we get into Moore, and later Brosnan movies....well....blah.

 

[ChaserFan]

As a huge Bond fan, nothing makes me more depressed than reading this thread

 

[thenammagazine]

Or View could just be a weak film (which it was,) and the audience was getting tired of Bond (the franchise would be dead two films later.) I always liked it though. Older Moore and scary Grace Jones aside, it has a great score and Walken is fun to watch.

I've heard this analogy used: Bond movies are like sex and pizza. Even when they're bad, they're still pretty good.

Tired of Bond? Or tired of Moore? My money's on the latter, especially coming on the heels of Connery's brief return in the Thunderball remake. It reminded people of the greatness that once was.

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Maybe, but like I said, the franchise was dead two (Moore-less) films later. Plus NSNA cost more to make than AVTAK, so in reality, they grossed about the same.

The fact is without Moore carrying the series into the 70's and 80's, we wouldn't be celebrating the 50th anniversary and SKYFALL today. After the Lazenby misstep, Moore proved Bond was bigger than Connery and the series could continue with different actors in the role. Quality of the films aside, his interpretation kept the character in the public consciousness for 12 more years.

 

[thenammagazine]

Proves bad press is better than no press. But the dip from the films post-Moore just shows that they went from bad to worse with Dalton, because the series exploded again with Brosnan taking over (until Die which killed it properly, forcing a complete reboot).

 

[Dr.Mirakle32]

What I don't get is how you dislike Moore and hate Dalton, but give props to Brosnan, who borrowed freely from both, as well as Connery.

 

[thenammagazine]

What I don't get is how you dislike Moore and hate Dalton, but give props to Brosnan, who borrowed freely from both, as well as Connery.

Brosnan wasn't nearly as campy/comedic as Moore and was more attuned to the charming gentleman aspect of the film Bond than Dalton. So while he borrowed from those two, he took what worked and left what didn't. Fortunately what didn't was what the previous two had banked on. But my two glaring issues with Brosnan are Christmas (which her whole inclusion was gross and attrocious), and the whole of Die Another Day which I consider the worst Bond movie of the bunch and considerably less believable than Moonraker (which was a Star Wars cash-in).