Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
This is a comments thread about Blog Post: 007's Gilbert and Hamilton: an exercise in greyness by Stephen Woolston
 
 Posted:   Feb 6, 2013 - 12:50 AM   
 By:   frankabe   (Member)

You nailed it. Thanks for expressing a thought that's bothered me for decades as well.

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 6, 2013 - 8:51 AM   
 By:   Bernardo Sena   (Member)

Very interesting! smile I completely agree!

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 6, 2013 - 10:51 AM   
 By:   quiller007   (Member)

I disagree with your assessment that Hamilton and Gilbert "ushered in
everything that was WRONG with the Bond films of the 70's: The gadgets,
the jokes, the serial gimmickery, etc." This is precisely the stuff I like about
those films. So, for me, they ushered in everything that was right.

Den

 
 Posted:   Feb 6, 2013 - 2:07 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)

I for one find SPY WHO LOVED ME one of the worst Bond films (give me the fun, exotic, but also derided OCTOPUSSY any day!), but per Mr Woolston's point, I fully recognize that one day I might watch it and finally see why everyone else finds it so praiseworthy.

Contributing to the mindset lamented here is the media's (especially with the advent of the Internet) tendency to make lists of best this and worst that, especially when it comes to the Bond series. Back when the Pierce Brosnan cycle began, I found it irritating to see snarky comments about Dalton and his films, ranking him and them at the bottom of the barrel, with Brosnan considered the greatest thing since Connery. Never mind that Brosnan's films were mostly flat and he just serviceable.

But what do I see now? Dalton's leaner, tougher Bond is finally beginning to come into his own, with reappraisals and appreciations coming in right and left. GQ Magazine, in its recent Bond issue, even ran a full page perceptive evaluation of Dalton called "Best Bond Ever." I suspect the Brosnan films will steadily decline in the popular viewpoint over time. I also expect Moore's deft, fun turn as Bond will become more appreciated, too. He was the right Bond for the times, and I find him and his films quite entertaining.

And of course, OHMSS, widely derided in its time, has been climbing the ranks for years and is regarded as the best Bond film ever by those who know their Bond.

Returning to Woolston's point, I fully admit the possibility that I might take greater pleasures in some of Brosnan's efforts, and some of the weaker Connerys, if they catch me in the right mood!

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 6, 2013 - 2:27 PM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

I disagree with your assessment that Hamilton and Gilbert "ushered in
everything that was WRONG with the Bond films of the 70's: The gadgets,
the jokes, the serial gimmickery, etc." This is precisely the stuff I like about
those films. So, for me, they ushered in everything that was right.

Den



It's a sobering thought that, if Lazenby had seen things differently, he could have played the character throughout the era that in fact belonged to Moore's interpretation. He'd still have been in his mid-40s by the time of A View to a Kill. You'd never have caught George making a damned quiche.

Oh god - if only! wink

 
 Posted:   Feb 6, 2013 - 4:53 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)

I disagree with your assessment that Hamilton and Gilbert "ushered in
everything that was WRONG with the Bond films of the 70's: The gadgets,
the jokes, the serial gimmickery, etc." This is precisely the stuff I like about
those films. So, for me, they ushered in everything that was right.

Den



It's a sobering thought that, if Lazenby had seen things differently, he could have played the character throughout the era that in fact belonged to Moore's interpretation. He'd still have been in his mid-40s by the time of A View to a Kill. You'd never have caught George making a damned quiche.

Oh god - if only! wink


I liked Roger Moore just fine, but would have loved to see Lazenby do additional installments.

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 5:58 AM   
 By:   terrybamber1   (Member)

Stephen has made a terrific post. It is so wrong we want to 'box' everything. There are brilliant moments in all Bond films and so gringe worthy moments too!!
Let's stop 'boxing' but thank you Stephen for a knock out post

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 6:14 AM   
 By:   mortenbond   (Member)

I would give Stephen a 10 out of 10 score!

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 7:29 AM   
 By:   Stephen Woolston   (Member)

Ha ha, thanks guys.

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 8:07 AM   
 By:   Miles (MerM)   (Member)

Back when the Pierce Brosnan cycle began, I found it irritating to see snarky comments about Dalton and his films, ranking him and them at the bottom of the barrel, with Brosnan considered the greatest thing since Connery. Never mind that Brosnan's films were mostly flat and he just serviceable.

And what's interesting now, with the Craig films out and people considering him the greatest thing since Connery (well, some here disagree, but whatever) Brosnan's tenure is now getting the snarky comments. History repeating itself.

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 1:29 PM   
 By:   danbeck   (Member)

With respect to the actors it is called "marketing", you have to sell your latest product as the best ever...

In the case of James Bond when Dalton stared in TLD he was sold as the best bond since Connery, more serious and close to Fleming than Roger Moore (who was indeed too old at AVTAK)

Then came Brosnan after the big gap after LTK failure at the box office (but it remains one of my favourite films of the series) and he was sold as the best since Connery also...

The same is happening now with Craig and will happen again with whoever comes after him.

Personally the bond I like the least is Brosnan (even less than Lazembi), but Connery, Roger, Dalton and Craig all managed to do great Bonds.


With respect to the films I like MWTGG for its humor and really like watching this film, find TSWLM good, specially at the action setpieces, but overall boring, Moonraker is great to look at but too cartunistic to generate any excitement. The Moore films I really like are FYEO, Octopusssy and, yes, AVTOAK (love the action, the vilain, the plot and the score) and as I also like TLD and LTK you can see that I really love the John Glenn movies.

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 2:07 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)



And what's interesting now, with the Craig films out and people considering him the greatest thing since Connery (well, some here disagree, but whatever) Brosnan's tenure is now getting the snarky comments. History repeating itself.


Always gotta have a punching bag! Though I was not too fond of Brosnan as Bond, I do like him personally, especially for his support of environmental causes, and he has given good performances in other films like TAILOR OF PANAMA. And I do like Daniel Craig, especially in the films he did before he made it big, but still he does not evoke Bond for me, especially the Bond of the novels, the way Dalton did.

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 2:17 PM   
 By:   Geoffers   (Member)

With respect to the actors it is called "marketing", you have to sell your latest product as the best ever...

In the case of James Bond when Dalton stared in TLD he was sold as the best bond since Connery, more serious and close to Fleming than Roger Moore (who was indeed too old at AVTAK)

Then came Brosnan after the big gap after LTK failure at the box office (but it remains one of my favourite films of the series) and he was sold as the best since Connery also...


It's a little harsh to call LTK a failure at the box office. It may not been as successful as TLD, but it still grossed $156 million - a lot of cash in 1989!

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 2:21 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

With respect to the actors it is called "marketing", you have to sell your latest product as the best ever...

In the case of James Bond when Dalton stared in TLD he was sold as the best bond since Connery, more serious and close to Fleming than Roger Moore (who was indeed too old at AVTAK)

Then came Brosnan after the big gap after LTK failure at the box office (but it remains one of my favourite films of the series) and he was sold as the best since Connery also...


It's a little harsh to call LTK a failure at the box office. It may not been as successful as TLD, but it still grossed $156 million - a lot of cash in 1989!


The financial success of the Bond films have always been judged by their US grosses.
fairly or unfairly
bruce

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 2:22 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Always gotta have a punching bag! Though I was not too fond of Brosnan as Bond, I do like him personally, especially for his support of environmental causes, and he has given good performances in other films like TAILOR OF PANAMA. And I do like Daniel Craig, especially in the films he did before he made it big, but still he does not evoke Bond for me, especially the Bond of the novels, the way Dalton did.


Your comment on Brosnan as a person resonates with me. Not just for what you mentioned, but primarily for the way he took care of his wife before her death.

That's a Man.

(Not sure if I went off-topic or not. If I did, sorry Stephen.)

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 2:42 PM   
 By:   Geoffers   (Member)

With respect to the actors it is called "marketing", you have to sell your latest product as the best ever...

In the case of James Bond when Dalton stared in TLD he was sold as the best bond since Connery, more serious and close to Fleming than Roger Moore (who was indeed too old at AVTAK)

Then came Brosnan after the big gap after LTK failure at the box office (but it remains one of my favourite films of the series) and he was sold as the best since Connery also...


It's a little harsh to call LTK a failure at the box office. It may not been as successful as TLD, but it still grossed $156 million - a lot of cash in 1989!


The financial success of the Bond films have always been judged by their US grosses.
fairly or unfairly
bruce


By whom?

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 2:46 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

the producers?

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 3:43 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)


Your comment on Brosnan as a person resonates with me. Not just for what you mentioned, but primarily for the way he took care of his wife before her death.

That's a Man.

(Not sure if I went off-topic or not. If I did, sorry Stephen.)


He does seem like quite the stand-up guy.

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 3:48 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)

DP

 
 Posted:   Feb 7, 2013 - 3:49 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)



The financial success of the Bond films have always been judged by their US grosses.
fairly or unfairly
bruce


By whom?


The issue here was that American audiences were less accepting of the new direction the series went with Dalton, and that was a huge factor in MGM pressuring to have him out. LTK did much less well here in the States than elsewhere (of course the BATMAN juggernaut and poor marketing didn't help). My understanding is that the Broccolis loved Dalton - he remains a friend of the family - and the energy he and John Glen brought to the series, and Cubby, very ill at the time, only gave him up reluctantly.

Yes, we Americans are to blame! Now that Bond has gone tough and dark again, people here are finally starting to get Dalton, slowly but surely.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.