Which Bond had the best debut movie?

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by Benoit Blanc

Not privy? She's M. Surely she'd be privy to all the significant events of Bond's past.

Covert intelligence is actually pretty compartmentalised ('need to know') and who knows what's actually in Bond's file.

In any case, Judi Dench as M does not have the personal connection with Bond and his adventures that the previous M did (which is why she had him evaluated and dismissed all his hunches about the helicopter) so 'don't go off on vendettas' doesn't really hit the same as it would if Robert Brown had said it

Originally Posted by Benoit Blanc

there's no such thing; a reboot is a reboot is a reboot

Of course there is, in much the same way that the term 'reboot' has been borrowed from tech. A hard reboot is when you completely turn off the power to the system before rebooting it, a soft reboot is when you, say, hit 'restart' on your computer but the power is kept on.

So as in tech, as in film, a hard reboot is when you completely jettison all previous elements of the franchise and completely start from scratch. Casino Royale is a hard reboot (although one that confusingly keeps Judi Dench as M). A soft reboot is one where you haven't completely jettisoned all the previous elements but they are, for all intents and purposes, completely ignored. GoldenEye is a soft reboot.

You see this in plenty of film franchises. Jurassic World, The Force Awakens, Superman Returns, Star Trek '09, these are all soft reboots. Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, these are all hard reboots.

[Benoit Blanc]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

Covert intelligence is actually pretty compartmentalised ('need to know') and who knows what's actually in Bond's file.

In any case, Judi Dench as M does not have the personal connection with Bond and his adventures that the previous M did (which is why she had him evaluated and dismissed all his hunches about the helicopter) so 'don't go off on vendettas' doesn't really hit the same as it would if Robert Brown had said it
Of course there is, in much the same way that the term 'reboot' has been borrowed from tech. A hard reboot is when you completely turn off the power to the system before rebooting it, a soft reboot is when you, say, hit 'restart' on your computer but the power is kept on.

So as in tech, as in film, a hard reboot is when you completely jettison all previous elements of the franchise and completely start from scratch. Casino Royale is a hard reboot (although one that confusingly keeps Judi Dench as M). A soft reboot is one where you haven't completely jettisoned all the previous elements but they are, for all intents and purposes, completely ignored. GoldenEye is a soft reboot.

You see this in plenty of film franchises. Jurassic World, The Force Awakens, Superman Returns, Star Trek '09, these are all soft reboots. Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, these are all hard reboots.

Oh god, I didn't know soft and hard reboots were technical terms too. Then in that case, I hate the practice of "soft" rebooting a film series. Either hard reboot the damn thing or just don't bother. A "soft" reboot is the *****'s way out.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

Really what they should have done is just get John Barry back, which brings me to my problem with David Arnold. To me he's just a John Barry imitator. All the notes are there but his scores just lack that John Barry flavour. They're kind of bland.

I pretty much agree with this, however, after hearing the scores to the last few Bond films particularly the Mendes ones, I kind of wish Arnold was back to at least provide a bit of Barry inspired oomph to the proceedings.

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

But then again, I feel mostly that way about any Bond score that wasn't done by John Barry, with the exception of GoldenEye's. It's a real shame they never got Barry back to do another but The Living Daylights is probably his finest work for a Bond film.

I really like the other non-Barry scores, though it's funny how dated they are compared to the ones he did (I'm talking about LALD, TSWLM and FYEO)

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

Wow, tough crowd lol. I'm always going to dig Live and Let Die for its blaxploitation vibe so rate it high. To me Moore's best were his first two (was actually in shape and less humor).

There's a certain charm to those first two he did. They were trying to move away from the SPECTRE style, megalomaniac bent on world domination style plots of the 60s and were pretty low key. LALD really is a very unique Bond film when you think about it. But, I guess, after the turmoil of the mid-70s, they needed something blockbuster to get back on track so they went back to those 60s style plots.

I didn't vote for it, but I really do enjoy LALD. You should check out the 007 Diaries book Moore wrote at the time, it's very insightful.

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

I didn't say GoldenEye was good only because it felt like it was written for Dalton. It's a good movie, period. It just felt more like a natural followup to Licence To Kill with the way M was scolding Bond about vendettas in her office and Bond telling Alec "for me" before dropping him to his death at the end.

Goldeneye was written with Dalton in mind but it really doesn't feel like a natural successor to Licence to Kill to me at all. Tonally, it's so different and with so many changes to cast and crew, even the location of MI6 headquarters, it really does feel every bit the soft reboot. The bit with M scolding Bond about vendettas was really just a reference to Alec, not anything that went on in LTK. It's also kind of telling that Goldeneye's PTS takes place in 1986, the year that Brosnan originally won, then lost, the role of 007, so in a sense Goldeneye seems to actually be trying to forget the Dalton films even existed.

[DCW]

Tough choice between Connery and Craig. Went back and forth but ultimately I think Casino Royale is the better of the two movies.

[Whirlybird fan]

Daniel Craig in Casino Royale

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

It's also kind of telling that Goldeneye's PTS takes place in 1986, the year that Brosnan originally won, then lost, the role of 007, so in a sense Goldeneye seems to actually be trying to forget the Dalton films even existed.

Yeah, I was going to mention that too.

I mean, the Dalton films have seen a renaissance in more recent years but the thing people have to understand is that, back then, they were considered failures. Licence to Kill did underperform, largely because of the last minute title change and putting it on in theatres during the summer of '89 when you had several big blockbuster films (Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2) cleaning up and not anything to do with Dalton himself. But Dalton got blamed, in much the same way that Brosnan himself got blamed for Die Another Day's lackluster performance and poor critical reception even though it was in no way his fault.

So when GoldenEye was in production and Brosnan had taken up the role, they kind of billed this as a return to form and 'let's just forget about that Dalton business, shall we?'

[Verisimilitude1984]

The best film is clearly OHMSS, just in terms of cinematography, scope, score etc. It's a majestic film.

However, as it's not in the poll I would go with Dr. No next. It's the template for all the Bonds that came after, Sean Connery remains the best Bond and it has the 'iconic' moment with Bond girl Ursula Andress. It's a very close call running against OHMSS.

Pleased to say all Bonds have had great debut films though.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

Yeah, I was going to mention that too.

I mean, the Dalton films have seen a renaissance in more recent years but the thing people have to understand is that, back then, they were considered failures. Licence to Kill did underperform, largely because of the last minute title change and putting it on in theatres during the summer of '89 when you had several big blockbuster films (Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2) cleaning up and not anything to do with Dalton himself. But Dalton got blamed, in much the same way that Brosnan himself got blamed for Die Another Day's lackluster performance and poor critical reception even though it was in no way his fault.

So when GoldenEye was in production and Brosnan had taken up the role, they kind of billed this as a return to form and 'let's just forget about that Dalton business, shall we?'

I don't believe Dalton got blamed. EON were ready to go ahead with a third Dalton movie to be shot in 1991; that was until MGM/UA went tits up. Dalton quit the role in 1993, and only then was Brosnan tapped as a replacement and a new script written.

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I don't believe Dalton got blamed. EON were ready to go ahead with a third Dalton movie to be shot in 1991; that was until MGM/UA went tits up. Dalton quit the role in 1993, and only then was Brosnan tapped as a replacement and a new script written.

They could have easily made that third film in 90/91, despite the lawsuit. The studios really weren't gung-ho about continuing with Dalton after Licence to Kill's lackluster box office, so they used the lawsuit as a pretext to run out his contract so they could hire somebody new, and not get sued obviously.

[The Sovereign]

Connery's first three are among my top five favorite Bond films. But Casino Royale is slightly ahead of Dr. No, so for this one, it's Craig.

[dommie]

I am going to go with Dr. No for a number of specific reasons. First, even though it's not my favorite Bond film, Dr. No stands alone for reasons already mentioned here. It was the first film and had no legacy to build on. Connery was working from scratch and had to introduce a new character, largely unknown to movie goers who were not familiar with Fleming's novels. He hit it out of the park.

Second, the filmmakers on Dr. No were breaking new ground and could have really screwed this up if not careful. They obviously did not screw it up and laid such a strong foundation for all that followed, as long as those subsequent filmmakers stayed true to the character. Some could argue that some of the films strayed a bit (especially with some of the Moore films) but most of the time, the filmmakers stayed on point. This gave those who followed (all the actors and directors who made the subsequent debut films noted) a supporting blueprint that those involved with Dr. No did not have to fall back on. In fact, you can see nods to some of the iconic scenes from Dr. No in many of the subsequent Bond films that foilowed.

Of those debut films noted, overall, I actually liked Casino Royale, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Goldeneye more than I did Dr. No but I have to hold Dr. No in a special place for the reasons noted above.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I don't believe Dalton got blamed. EON were ready to go ahead with a third Dalton movie to be shot in 1991; that was until MGM/UA went tits up. Dalton quit the role in 1993, and only then was Brosnan tapped as a replacement and a new script written.

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

They could have easily made that third film in 90/91, despite the lawsuit. The studios really weren't gung-ho about continuing with Dalton after Licence to Kill's lackluster box office, so they used the lawsuit as a pretext to run out his contract so they could hire somebody new, and not get sued obviously.

No, they really couldn’t have gone ahead with that third film in 1990 for the same reason they couldn’t make any new Friday the 13th films during the Victor Miller court case. It involved distribution and TV rights to the series and making a new film when the two rights co-owners were at loggerheads would have created massive complications.

It’s true though that Dalton’s stint as Bond had a very lukewarm reaction. At the time he was seen as stiff and humourless and his perceived lack of charisma was blamed in part for Licence to Kill underperforming. When the series resumed though Dalton was considered the incumbent and was genuinely offered the chance to return but he was only interested in doing a one-picture deal while Eon wanted someone willing to commit to a multi-picture deal so there was some consistency as they tried to get the series back on track.

[Zechs Merquise]

Well, in any case, UA were not going to back GoldenEye with Dalton. The performance of the Dalton films was lackluster, Dalton was blamed, and UA wanted somebody new because they were trying to give the franchise a shot in the arm

[Canada]

Daniel Craig in Casino Royale.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Canada

Daniel Craig in Casino Royale.

But he debuted as James Bond properly in Quantum of Solace. I know everyone wants to forget that film though, so his Re-debut in Skyfall was better IMHO.

In Casino Royale, he's wet behind the ears and he gets played by the heroine, literally dies due to incompetence, gets captured by the villain and is rescued not by his own ingenuity and pluck, as a proper Bond would, but by another villain.

If Craig's character played James Bond in any way but character name in Casino Royale then it was only for the last few minutes of the film.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

Well, in any case, UA were not going to back GoldenEye with Dalton. The performance of the Dalton films was lackluster, Dalton was blamed, and UA wanted somebody new because they were trying to give the franchise a shot in the arm

They would have backed whomever Eon chose to star. I think ultimately that it was best that Dalton didn't return though. Brosnan was the right guy at the right time. I'm not a huge fan of Brosnan, but he had that easy charm that appealed to a larger fan base and with Goldeneye being a fresh start, it was a good way to introduce 007 to a new generation without the previous guy's baggage.

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

They would have backed whomever Eon chose to star

UA literally said they weren't going to develop a new Bond film if Dalton was going to star in it. Jeff Kleeman said this and Alan Ladd Jr felt the same way. It's in the book 'Some Kind of Hero', where they discuss the making of all the Bond films.

If Dalton's contract hadn't expired, they'd probably have paid him off. Bottom line, Dalton's the one who got blamed for Licence to Kill's poor performance

[BloodshotUSA]

Goldeneye is pretty much the greatest Bond movie ever in my opinion.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

UA literally said they weren't going to develop a new Bond film if Dalton was going to star in it. Jeff Kleeman said this and Alan Ladd Jr felt the same way. It's in the book 'Some Kind of Hero', where they discuss the making of all the Bond films.

If Dalton's contract hadn't expired, they'd probably have paid him off. Bottom line, Dalton's the one who got blamed for Licence to Kill's poor performance

Eon have full creative control over the Bond series. Dalton was already attached to The Property of a Lady when it went into pre-production in 1990, prior to the lawsuit. There was never any talk at the time of him not playing Bond a third time even in the wake of Licence to Kill's "poor performance".

Once the Bond series resumed, Cubby Broccoli publicly declared that the role was still Dalton's as long as he wanted it, which as I stated earlier he did on the condition he could only do one more film.

A variety of factors were attributed to how Licence to Kill performed at the box office in 1989. There's a reason why there hasn't been a Bond film released in the summer since then.

[Geode]

I can't vote in the poll because the best debut isn't included, George Lazenby.