Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

#34480
Here's that Shatner quote about Connery, one of the rare times I can believe he was a MENSA guy:

I'll tell you someone who has never gotten the credit he deserves, and that is Sean Connery. I happened to see two of the James Bond pictures recently on television [AM THINKING THESE WERE FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER, AS I RECALL THOSE AIRING EARLY AND MID 79 ON ABC] , and I watched them carefully, and I realized the extent of his achievement. Even the first time through, it was such an extravagant production, but I was struck by how real and how valid Connery's performances are with what could be leaden dialogue, as we have seen in the hands of other performers. Other actors have made it not only leaden but also self-mocking. He never mocked himself in the playing, he was always playing it as though it was the most real, valid situation that he found himself in, whether it was with the girls of the bizarre villains, he took it all very seriously, but himself humorously as 007 -- never Sean Connery mocking himself. And that's not always the case with some of the other people who have done Bond movies.
I think I just read this Shatner quote last week. He made what could be coming from another actor completely over the top and ridiculous stuff down to Earth so to speak and believable. Anyone else and it's completely cheesy. Harrison Ford did that for some of the early Star Wars and Indiana Jones films as well. He held it together.

The Moore films I just find too all over the place and inconsistent. Heck, I grew up loving Jaws and Christopher Lee's Scaramonga as great villains. But those films haven't held up over time for me. Doesn't mean I think Moore was terrible. He wasn't. But following Connery, it was different.

Tyler Mirage: Brosnan would be a great Bond but those movies he was put in, aside from Goldeneye, remind me mostly of Moore's later Bonds(Octopussy,A View To A Kill). I watched Goldeneye not long ago and still found it enjoyable. But Die another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies....ugh.

Funny how no one mentions Timothy Dalton. I actually like his Bond films perhaps just behind the best of the Connery films.
#34482
I pretty much ALWAYS mention Dalton. He is my alt-best along with Connery, very much the Fleming book Bond if you look at the later books or the very first one. His pair are kind of schizophrenic, but I think they show more to the character -- that is TRUE to the character, as opposed to emo-Bonding him like this century -- and the very dangerous feel of the Bond universe (especially LTK, which feels like Fleming, very nasty & rough) than any pair of other outings, unless you bring the near-perfect FROM RUSSIA into thing.
#34483
I pretty much ALWAYS mention Dalton. He is my alt-best along with Connery, very much the Fleming book Bond if you look at the later books or the very first one. His pair are kind of schizophrenic, but I think they show more to the character -- that is TRUE to the character, as opposed to emo-Bonding him like this century -- and the very dangerous feel of the Bond universe (especially LTK, which feels like Fleming, very nasty & rough) than any pair of other outings, unless you bring the near-perfect FROM RUSSIA into thing.
"emo-Bonding" :lol:

Yes, you always do mention Dalton. I meant no one really mentions Dalton the wider public discussion of Bonds in general though. I guess it is like Lazenby because he only made two films and then Bond went away for a while after LTK.

You and Ahem both discussed Dalton's films back in the day here. I skipped them when they first came out and wasn't a big Bond fan then. I grew up with the Roger Moore Bond films like Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and A View To A Kill. That was what I thought Bond films were: over the top and frankly, kind of cheesy. One of my friends was a big Bond fan and had seen the Connery films and liked his ones better, so I then went back and watched those after I had already watched most of the Moore films in the 80s. So I only became a Bond and Connery fan after he was long gone from the franchise.

Then when you and Ahem had these really great discussions about the vfx in the Bond films and some of the in camera miniatures for The Living Daylights and LTK, I then went back and watched those and became a fan.

Sometimes I wonder if Ahem wasnt some really old guy who knew them because he seemed to know so much about all of those classic era UK vfx people and what they did. Or he was just a really big UK vfx fan in general. That's more likely. The thing that was great about Ahem is he minced no words. He even got into an argument with Hal Hickel here about something that I forget. But that's what made this site great is that it encompassed passionate fan-based opinions from all fans, ILM animators included. :D

I still remember a particular in camera effect he mentioned, I think it was in TLD, where a miniature car with headlights was shot and it remained in camera for a long time yet it wouldn't strike anyone as an vfx shot. Those are the kinds of things I guess the Bond films are full of.

Speaking of Bond, what is this earlier Casino Royale movie some Bond fans mention that is non-canon? Not the 2006 Craig one but earlier. I've never seen it. Is that the Peter Sellers satirical film? How could that even be considered a Bond film, even if non-canon? Is it about James Bond?
#34484
Firstly, I like my Bond to have a sense of fun. Connery was too busy taking himself seriously as the icon of infallible male perfection, while Moore’s was more tongue-in-cheek and leagues closer to an actual human being with a heart, vs. Sean Connery’s ME BIG MACHO MALE MAN NO EMOTIONS mid-20th century caricature of a “man”.

But all of that^ pales in comparison to the fact that Roger Moore’s Bond also fought ninjas, defeated a zombie, tamed a tiger and then finally went to space in what is probably the greatest balls-out crazy James Bond adventure of all time: Moonraker. Things that Connery Bond cannot boast. ;)

And despite my defense of Moore, he’s actually not even my #1 favourite. That honour goes to Brosnan. With all of that said, though, we can at least agree on Craig being at the bottom.
:lol: true! Plus, he bedded Grace Jones so the man obviously had bigger cajones than she did. A View to a Kill's theme song by Duran Duran was my favorite at the time. I was a big fan of them and the Duran's Taylor offshoot group The Power Station produced by Chic's Bernard Edwards and that songby DD is still a great tune(even if the music video is absolutely ridiculous and Simon Le Bon sang the damn thing out of tune at Live Aid of all places).
I grew up with the Moore Bonds and certainly there are aspects to them that I enjoy. I guess it is just a matter of different tastes? You said from the outset you like your Bonds to have a bit more fun, so that suggests a lighter tone. I can imagine what you thought of Craigs Bond getting his nuts endlessly tortured in Casino Royale. :lol: Probably not your idea of a fun night watching 007. :D The one thing I will say about the Moore Bonds too is that they carried over the same Cold War era black and white villainy that made the Bond villains the best. Now all we get are these poor tortured villains with a bad upbringing who are only seeking revanche. Yeah, okay because every villain has to be this muddled grey poor sad sack villain. He can't just be an evil guy doing bad things. He must have had bad parents. That explains it. :e_confused:
#34485
Regarding the Sellers ROYALE ... it was made by a guy who owned the rights to only that book, and they went the WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? route (another film he produced) after getting a turn-down from Connery and I think from Broccoli & Salzman, who had probably had 'had it' going through THUNDERBALL as a coproduction with Kevin McClory.

It's a total madcap mess, with every UK agent being renamed James Bond to confuse the opposition (there is a veiled reference to Connery, suggesting he has been reduced to doing television.) Val Guest wound up directing most of it I think, after John Huston went hunting during filming and they went through two or three other people. Seller was a total jerk who wouldn't appear on set with Welles, and the producer fired him off the picture before his part had wrapped, creating a huge leap in the action, or what passes for action.

I should hate it, but I saw it about 30 times as a teenager (it was always on the channel 2 weekend movie, Saturday and Sunday, same as MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and THE BIRDS) and even though it is just all over the place, it has a wonderful score and insane 60s pop art production design.

Plus you can come in on the movie anywhere, because no matter where you are, it just doesn't matter.

Of some interest ... Les Bowie did a lot of work on this, things like a giant flying saucer landing in the UK and a knight on horseback riding into it carrying Bond's grown daughter Mata (yes, you read that right.)

Oh yeah, Frankenstein's monster also turns up at one point, though I have no idea why.

If this post gives you even the slightest idea of how messed up this movie is (though there actually is a core element straight from the novel that you'll recognize in the Craig film), then my work is done.
#34486
Regarding the Sellers ROYALE ... it was made by a guy who owned the rights to only that book, and they went the WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? route (another film he produced) after getting a turn-down from Connery and I think from Broccoli & Salzman, who had probably had 'had it' going through THUNDERBALL as a coproduction with Kevin McClory.

It's a total madcap mess, with every UK agent being renamed James Bond to confuse the opposition (there is a veiled reference to Connery, suggesting he has been reduced to doing television.) Val Guest wound up directing most of it I think, after John Huston went hunting during filming and they went through two or three other people. Seller was a total jerk who wouldn't appear on set with Welles, and the producer fired him off the picture before his part had wrapped, creating a huge leap in the action, or what passes for action.

I should hate it, but I saw it about 30 times as a teenager (it was always on the channel 2 weekend movie, Saturday and Sunday, same as MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and THE BIRDS) and even though it is just all over the place, it has a wonderful score and insane 60s pop art production design.

Plus you can come in on the movie anywhere, because no matter where you are, it just doesn't matter.

Of some interest ... Les Bowie did a lot of work on this, things like a giant flying saucer landing in the UK and a knight on horseback riding into it carrying Bond's grown daughter Mata (yes, you read that right.)

Oh yeah, Frankenstein's monster also turns up at one point, though I have no idea why.

If this post gives you even the slightest idea of how messed up this movie is (though there actually is a core element straight from the novel that you'll recognize in the Craig film), then my work is done.
Yes, your work was exceptional. :lol: I wonder if any psychedelics were involved during the making of it?
#34487
Other people actually like Dalton, too?! Not trying to jump on the band-wagon, but he's my 2nd favourite (just barely edged out by Brosnan) Bond. Very underrated. (I always say that he did the "moody and serious" thing decades before Craig stepped on the scene and did it without being off-putting or dour). Dalton used to be my #1 favourite until I rewatched the Brosnan movies. Plus, the fact that nobody ever talked about Dalton kind of made me think "Well, why bother saying he's my favourite if people barely remember that he was even a thing?" :lol:
Speaking of Bond, what is this earlier Casino Royale movie some Bond fans mention that is non-canon? Not the 2006 Craig one but earlier. I've never seen it. Is that the Peter Sellers satirical film? How could that even be considered a Bond film, even if non-canon? Is it about James Bond?
EDIT: Oh, KMart beat me to it.

There's a 1967 Casino Royale with David Niven as 007 that's not "canon" with the Connery/Lazenby/Moore Bonds of that era. But there's also the 1983's Never Say Never Again with Connery that wasn't an Eon Production, so it isn't considered part of the main movies, either. Basically the two James Bond movies that aren't considered "true" James Bond movies.
#34488
Other people actually like Dalton, too?! Not trying to jump on the band-wagon, but he's my 2nd favourite (just barely edged out by Brosnan) Bond. Very underrated. (I always say that he did the "moody and serious" thing decades before Craig stepped on the scene and did it without being off-putting or dour). Dalton used to be my #1 favourite until I rewatched the Brosnan movies. Plus, the fact that nobody ever talked about Dalton kind of made me think "Well, why bother saying he's my favourite if people barely remember that he was even a thing?" :lol:


There's a 1967 Casino Royale with David Niven as 007 that's not "canon" with the Connery/Lazenby/Moore Bonds of that era. But there's also the 1983's Never Say Never Again with Connery that wasn't an Eon Production, so it isn't considered part of the main movies, either. Basically the two James Bond movies that aren't considered "true" James Bond movies.

Oh I get why people dont mention Dalton much. He followed a longtime Bond in Moore, his films weren't big BO successes, he only did two and then the entire franchise went on ice for, what, seven or eight years?

From what I remember about Never Say Never Again, it was made as a Bond movie but outside the canon films. So it is Connery as Bond but....I just treat it like a one-off.
#34494
So I've been rewatching the Connery bond films over the last few nights.

I'm still bewildered at Sean Connery's depiction of a Vulcan sans the ears who goes into hiding in Japan in You Only Live Twice. I suppose he could pass muster if he were Scots-Japanese but..... :-?
#34496
Wonder if that is where Shat got the idea to hire him as Sybok.

Then there's the progression, where they also didn't get Von Sydow or Brandauer, you suddenly go to Luckinbilll (who DOES have a couple good moments. When he asks, "am I" mad and then smiles, it is like he is trying hard to hit Connery's MAN WHO WOULD BE KING.

I have gotten to the point where I watch FROM RUSSIA about three times a year now. It is like a fix I need.
#34497
So I saw ALITA BATTLE ANGEL, and boy, it lost a lot of the ambition and scope when Cameron handed the project to Robert Rodriguez (who I do like, don'tget me wrong), because it felt more like his SPY KIDS movies than the sci-fi epic it would've been had Cameron stuck with it full time.

I also didn't understand why the main character had to be completely CG while the supporting cyborg cast was a combination of real faces and CG bodies. The movie was entertaining, but it seemed like it was rushed.
#34526
I am re-watching all of the old Bond films(Connery and Moore bonds) and I have to say I love the making ofs for all of the films. I'd never watched the extras until this last week. They pay proper attention to the stunt people and the dangerous work they did for all of the films. The troubles they had on Live and Let Die(perhaps my least favorite of the Moore Bonds)is interesting as hell to listen about. When they ran a little tidbit at the bottom as Jane Seymour was talking about this tarot reader she visited during the shoot about predicting her three marriages....only to note after that she was married a fourth time in 1993(?) I laughed out loud! :lol:
And that croc-master, Kananga, was nuts! The Spy Who Loved Me was a great film though. I really liked that Moore Bond I will say. My favorites are still Connery's From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball but The Spy Who Loved Me is next or maybe tied with Dr. No. Those two are both great.

I am amazed at the production machine that EON created for this franchise. They would have one film finished shooting and they would already be well underway on the next one. And they did this for years(even when their damned stage burned down. Thanks Ridley! :P ).
#34527
That's the lattice of coincidence at work. I was just looking at the L&D documentary about ten days ago (there must be some extras on the blu-ray set that I don't recall seeing on the DVDs, either that or I probably never owned L&LD on any format -- probably the latter.)

The Eon machine kept a lot of the same key cogs -- Maibaum, Adam, Pevsner, Hunt, Barry and Cain among the most important -- either in place or in rotation for a very long while, which I think in large part accounts for the ability to churn out product so consistently. Plus UA didn't bug them too much. The fact the films evolved with the times (I tend to think of it as degeneration) also points to Broc & co usually having the pulse of the public.

But I think it alienating some of its devotees with the all-controlling aspect ... when I was 16 or 17 and first hearing about all the crap Eon was pulling to keep Connery and McClory from making WARHEAD, it really ticked me off almost as much as the Burt Reynoldsing of the Bond movies that was going on at the same time. A few years later when I heard on the radio that Broc was getting the Thallberg award, I actually kicked a hole in the spaceship chair my roommate had built for my short film (no mean trick, he used a lot of wood.)

By that time I actually bought a copy of the unmade script (credited to Connery and Len Deighton as well as original pre-THUNDERBALL scenarist Whitingham) and it was godawful bad, worse than the NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN version that limped out afterward. It had a super climax I've probably described previously, with SPECTRE taking over the Statue of Liberty and helicopters firing into it, with blood pouring out of the eye of the statue, before Orson Welles as Blofeld ziplines down to a giant mobile underwater city-ship, but other than that it was flat.
#34530
Funny you mention the Burt Reynoldsing of the latter Moore Bonds and the attempt to be hip or with the times. Live and Let Die has some cringeworthy Shaft-lite moments. Sorry but Moore is many things but he isn't Richard Roundtree. And that redneck sheriff is right out of Smokey and the Bandit or Dukes of Hazzard. Too bad too because the cast is good(Yaphet Kotto makes a good villain).

They mention in one of the Making ofs(might be L&LD) about casting Reynolds as Bond but Broccoli demanded a Brit play him, which is funny because they later had another American actor, James Brolin, do a screen test when Moore had to renegotiate his contract for For Your Eyes Only(or was it Octopussy?) and his return was up in the air. So as much as "he must be a Brit" was the line they still would consider American actors for the role.
#34532
Shoot, they hired an American to play Bond for DIAMONDS (John Gavin) and then paid him off when Connery came back, so the American thing sounded week even back then. I remember Eastwood was discussed as well, and his silhouette IS Bond, but you'd have to dub him.
#34533
Shoot, they hired an American to play Bond for DIAMONDS (John Gavin) and then paid him off when Connery came back, so the American thing sounded week even back then. I remember Eastwood was discussed as well, and his silhouette IS Bond, but you'd have to dub him.
I did not know that!

Yes, Eastwood was the other American they mentioned in one of the docs. Who was the American they liked but thought was too short?
#34536
The only non-Craig shortie I ever remember them wanting was Mel Gibson. Supposedly he was offered a blank check in the mid 80s (and possibly again later.) The people I remember them considering as Connery replacements were the guy from ONE MILLION YEARS BC and Adam West, and I'm pretty sure they are Bond sized (around 6'1-1/2"-6'2" is how they always cast before this current thing got the job ... another reason I always deluded ded myself into thinking I would get the job someday.)
Oh, I take it back. Richard 'the welsh dwarf' Burton was also considered, though most of that talk was in the 1950s.

Back in the pre-IMDB days, I sat through a whole episode of THE LOVE BOAT just to see Gavin in action, to see if he could have played Bond (had only seen and not remembered him in SPARTACUS, long before I got round to seeing PSYCHO.) He looked good in a suit and actually had a scene where he pulled a gun on somebody (so far as I know, that makes it a unique episode of the show), but just didn't have it, or anything like it. He might have been better than Moore, but no great shakes.

EDIT ADD-ON: I haven't come across a copy in decades, but John Brosnan (who wrote an effects book called MOVIE MAGIC that I've rebought about six times down through the years) wrote a couple different versions of a book called JAMES BOND IN THE CINEMA, one published after DIAMONDS (the one with a lurid pop-art cover), one after MOONRAKER, I think. It was a very short and fun read originally, then a longer more critical read, but like I said, I haven't reread it in 30 years. But when you finish wading through the immensity that is v'ger-I-mean-RETURN TO TOMORROW, maybe that would be a good one for you.
Shoot, they hired an American to play Bond for DIAMONDS (John Gavin) and then paid him off when Connery came back, so the American thing sounded week even back then. I remember Eastwood was discussed as well, and his silhouette IS Bond, but you'd have to dub him.
I did not know that!

Yes, Eastwood was the other American they mentioned in one of the docs. Who was the American they liked but thought was too short?
  • 1
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38