James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[imsounoriginal]

Continuity has never been a thing for these movies, which is why it's kinda annoying whenever they try to make some of the movies tie together. These always work best as very loosely connected standalones.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Continuity has never been a thing for these movies, which is why it's kinda annoying whenever they try to make some of the movies tie together. These always work best as very loosely connected standalones.

Yeah. Other than Star Trek and Star Wars continuity was never really cared about until the Marvel shit came along. No one cared. It's always crazy to me when I read these long debates about making the continuity work in Mad Max or X-Men or whatever, when none of it was ever planned because the creators didn't care.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah. Other than Star Trek and Star Wars continuity was never really cared about until the Marvel shit came along. No one cared. It's always crazy to me when I read these long debates about making the continuity work in Mad Max or X-Men or whatever, when none of it was ever planned because the creators didn't care.

Marvel, and the Internet in general. I remember being kinda confused about Dench being in Casino Royale -- I kinda figured they'd have Anthony Hopkins or someone be M, and then have Dench graduate to his job -- but ultimately you just let it go. All that matters is the individual movie.

[ChromeJob]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

So, again, whatever makes the viewer feel comfortable in consolidating those tonal differences, continuity errors, casting changes, floating timelines in his or her own mind is fine with me, but don't conflate those personal theories with any sort of official stance by the films' creators.

You keep saying this in reply to me, and I don't know why? I'm not claiming anything like timeline reboots on the part of the filmmakers. I just note that they make some stylistic changes to keep up with the times (blaxploitation flavour, outer space theme) and some content targeting topical issues (Soviets in Afghanistan, drug wars), and these changes are particularly apparent when they intro a new actor in the role.


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Continuity has never been a thing for these movies, which is why it's kinda annoying whenever they try to make some of the movies tie together. These always work best as very loosely connected standalones.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah. Other than Star Trek and Star Wars continuity was never really cared about until the Marvel shit came along. No one cared. It's always crazy to me when I read these long debates about making the continuity work in Mad Max or X-Men or whatever, when none of it was ever planned because the creators didn't care.

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Marvel, and the Internet in general. I remember being kinda confused about Dench being in Casino Royale -- I kinda figured they'd have Anthony Hopkins or someone be M, and then have Dench graduate to his job -- but ultimately you just let it go. All that matters is the individual movie.

I would say it pretty much started with Star Wars, it's mainly after that you start to see tighter continuity between films that are part of a series (while obviously there were and are exceptions). I kind of feel like, from the '80s and on, home video contributed too. In the old days the cinema was where you went to see movies, and by the time a sequel hit most of the audience very well may not have seen its predecessor in however many years had passed since the original release. So there was simply less need, and there would have been more lax attitudes about it in general.

Jump forward to home video, and suddenly people had easy access to their favorite films and were able to watch them over and over again in the comfort of their home. Now you could pick apart and analyze films in a way that wasn't possible in the past, which would have created different standards and expectations for things like that. The modern film geek with all his/her quirks and obsessions was probably largely shaped by the '80s (home video going mainstream) and '90s (the internet doing the same).

[StingingVelvet]

I remember in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade it was cool that Indy mentioned the Ark and knew what it was. 14 year old StingingVelvet was like "that's because of Raiders!" Other than Star Wars and Trek you mostly had standalone movies with little references like that, which were exciting but not distracting or endless. I feel like a lot of modern stuff overdoes it, spending a ton of time reminding you it's all connected.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

You keep saying this in reply to me, and I don't know why? I'm not claiming anything like timeline reboots on the part of the filmmakers. I just note that they make some stylistic changes to keep up with the times (blaxploitation flavour, outer space theme) and some content targeting topical issues (Soviets in Afghanistan, drug wars), and these changes are particularly apparent when they intro a new actor in the role.


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

It's a general response but in particular you WERE the one who first referred to Live and Let Die as a reboot and seeing as you are now saying you didn't mean a "timeline reboot" and you've got some other guy referring to certain films as "soft reboots", maybe let's just acknowledge that any film series that's been around for 50+ years is going to have shifts in style and tone without muddying the waters trying to figure out which is a reboot and which isn't, particularly when it's never been a series that's all that concerned with strict continuity anyway.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

Okay, whatevers, you win, grab your marbles and rule the playground if you must.


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

Okay, well I can see that engaging in a mature debate is something I don't need to bother doing with you in the future.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by ChromeJob

You kept repeating the same strawman argument. (yawn) Welcome to my ignore list.

I consider that an honor. You can't defend your points, so you resort to childish lashing out. Cheerio then.

[ChromeJob]

The Telegraph appreciation of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS on its 30th anniversary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/f...till-nastiest/


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

I think The Living Daylights is in my top 5, seriously. Better than any of the single Moore films imo (though I love many of his too).

I do love Live and Let Die almost as much though. I wish they'd gone a little further with the "voodoo" stuff, but it's got - arguably - the most beautiful of all Bond women, and it has Yapphet Kotto who is a damn national treasure of an actor.

But then the next film has Christopher Lee! Plus Tattoo and Brit Ekland in a bikini and the "third nipple" absurdity. God that creeped me out when I was younger.

[ChromeJob]

For all its flaws — and there are many in TMWTGG — a lack of top shelf beautiful women isn't one of them. Even in supporting roles.


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

[MJD64]

Yaphet Kotto did indeed make for a formidable Bond Villain; but he is given what I consider to be inarguably the worst send-off of any nemesis in the history of the series.

Christopher Lee still takes first chair as greatest villain faced by Roger Moore, IMO.

[Trekkie313]

Am I the only one who thinks TMWTGG is the second worst Moore movie?

I legit fell asleep watching that movie when I first watched it as a child. I don't find it very engaging and the production design feels cheap.

[drush9999]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Am I the only one who thinks TMWTGG is the second worst Moore movie?

I legit fell asleep watching that movie when I first watched it as a child. I don't find it very engaging and the production design feels cheap.

Nope second worst for me too. It has some great ideas, just not executed very well. I suspect my worst Moore Bond is not the same though as I enjoy View to a Kill

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by MJD64

Yaphet Kotto did indeed make for a formidable Bond Villain; but he is given what I consider to be inarguably the worst send-off of any nemesis in the history of the series.

Christopher Lee still takes first chair as greatest villain faced by Roger Moore, IMO.

I agree, the Dr. Kananga "balloon" death is one of the stupidest moments in the entire series.

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Am I the only one who thinks TMWTGG is the second worst Moore movie?

I legit fell asleep watching that movie when I first watched it as a child. I don't find it very engaging and the production design feels cheap.

The production design does feel cheap (like I said earlier, it has a low-rent feel) but I still personally really like it and think it's underrated. Yet, while my heart says it's good, my head says it's not one of Moore's best. Still, I rank A View To A Kill and Moonraker below it. While Moonraker is an amazing and spectacular Bond film, I feel that it just goes a tad overboard with the silly stuff.

[PeterTHX]

Finally watched Becoming Bond on Hulu.

Interesting format for a documentary. Lazenby's had an interesting life to say for sure. Makes you wonder what might have been.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Am I the only one who thinks TMWTGG is the second worst Moore movie?

I legit fell asleep watching that movie when I first watched it as a child. I don't find it very engaging and the production design feels cheap.

I prefer it to LALD and AVTAK so its 3rd on my list.
But I saw it at the cinema when it first came out my views on it change as the decades go by.
In the early days of video I didn't really rate it. I think the budget is quite cheap compared to all that came after but once I got to see it on laserdisc then dvd it was easier to enjoy the production design as the home video format quality improved.
There are daft elements to it as there are to all the Moore movies but overall it's quite an interesting one although talk of "the energy crisis" dates it somewhat.
John Barrys score is exceptional though

[ChromeJob]

It's got some of John Barry's best, and worst, work. TLD is a great Barry score too, despite being a bit more rock-oriented.


\\ Sent from an Android or iOS device //

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

I prefer it to LALD and AVTAK so its 3rd on my list.
But I saw it at the cinema when it first came out my views on it change as the decades go by.
In the early days of video I didn't really rate it. I think the budget is quite cheap compared to all that came after but once I got to see it on laserdisc then dvd it was easier to enjoy the production design as the home video format quality improved.
There are daft elements to it as there are to all the Moore movies but overall it's quite an interesting one although talk of "the energy crisis" dates it somewhat.
John Barrys score is exceptional though

The budget was $7 million, which is about $33 million in 2017 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, only the first three films had lower budgets.