fizzwheel |
10-11-06 04:59 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky
So how can the "1st Bond" be in a post cold war setting ? I know bond is timeless and its only a movie, but this just doesn't sit right with me.
|
Its going to be difficult, but it could be done, without messing up the plot. The last part of the book is extremely tense with a lot of stress. Its also bl**dy well written and you really can get inside bonds head and relate to what he's going through and what he's trying to achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky
Fizz: I take it the Casino Royale book is very different from the David Niven film then ?
|
I dont know I watched the first 5 minutes of it years ago and turned it off as it was total sh*t...
The thing is and its something that always annoys me about the bond films, especially the Roger Moore era... Bond is always country first, he doesnt use a huge array of gadgets and technology in the books, just his cunning, with and charm. He's fighter not a lover, he's very ruthless and will think nothing of using people to get what he wants. Alot of the tension and drama in the books is all caused by physchological in the mind kind of stuff, rather than flashy gadgets etc, but I guess that wouldnt translate well onto the big screen as it woudl involve the audience using their brains rather than sitting their to be entertained.
I just do get that from Roger Moore. I always think Roger Moore as Bond the ladies man, but he said himself thats just his interpretation of the character and he wanted to be different that Connery.
I think Brosnan and Dalton brought something of the edge back to Bond, the will to complete his mission and would go to any lengths to protect his country at the risk of himself.
But for me Connery is the best Bond. The trouble is IMHO that the later films are lacking the fleming books to be based on. But what they did with Moonraker the film was an absoloute travesty IMHO.
|