For the sake of argument, Moonraker is a polish of something immediately preceding it and whilst it hurts me right through the encrusted flab of me withering guts to write this, arguably Thunderball is too.
Maybe the proposition should be that a Bond actor’s character loses its way. It is a truth universally acknowledged, that I should spend more time thinking these through before emitting them.
That is true, I believe. Based on my extensive trust in clickbait headlines, quotes taken out of context and „people are saying“-self made hatchet pieces.
With Connery and Moore both, their third films were huge successes and their fourth ones mainly concerned with replicating this as amped up entries. The character of Bond didn’t need tempering because they’d hit it perfectly in the previous production. After MOONRAKER Moore got a little more depth - the revenge speech but most importantly Tracy’s grave - maybe also because they’d seen what happened to Connery when there was no adjustment. A little goes a long way when it comes to Bond.
Brosnan’s Bond was largely established with GOLDENEYE; I’d argue they kept the same guy over the entire run, just putting him through different iterations and with essentially the same personal angle - Natalya’s speech, the Carver woman, the Elektra betrayal, the imprisonment all pointing to a conflict between Bond’s profession and his heart. These grew more central to the plots with each film, but they remained elements within a bigger picture.
Meanwhile, Craig’s entire run was about Bond, the schemes mainly there to involve 007, excuses to show him off brooding in expensive garb and wearing bling. I acknowledge that this largely happened unplanned - and by using the first Fleming as Craig’s entry, effectively a character study of a guy under severe pressure - and may have sounded like a good idea in the years after 2006. But insofar as today’s argument goes it would show the rott setting in at an early stage. And the lack of course correction, after whichever film - but at the latest after the third - is responsible for the end result.
So that would make today’s universally acknowledged truth a fiction.
Welcome to the internet, m’honeyplop.
I hear one cannot trust it often.
I’m always fascinated to see just how many people in the Bond fandom are passionate about AVTAK. I can see their points too, even if historically I haven’t always been the biggest fan of the film. I suspect the soundtrack will get the LaLaLand treatment in the near future to the delight of many.
In both instances I prefer the fourth films of the Connery and Moore tenures, and think that’s where both peaked.
It’s false!
Not so much that the films after lose their way, but that somehow the third is the be all and end all of each actor’s tenure. GF and SF are both held out as “peak SC/DC” but I’d offer that the actor was “better” in other outings (FRWL and CR) and in GF’s case, it’s not the best overall outing or performance in SC’s run.
While is Brozza is very good in TWINE, even I will admit it that it’s not the best film of his tenure (you could make an argument that GE was the peak and it was all downhill from there).
And finally I’ll proffer Laz - yes I know he never got to #2 never mind #3, but OHMSS is brilliant and it would have been physically impossible to have topped that.
The dealbreaker here would have been that impossible task to have Lazenby in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Lazenby was so good because he’s been given one of the series strongest scripts based on one of its strongest books. Meanwhile the whole point of DAF is ‘whatever, Connery is back’. With Lazenby they’d have needed a completely different approach.
DAF as we know it would be very different, but I’m sure the regulars (Barry, Adam, etc) would have still delivered quality around Lazenby. It really would have come down to the script. Perhaps it would’ve been a merge of Fleming’s DAF and YOLT, with Draco and Savalas Blofeld returning - with a need to either recast or write out Bunt.
Peter Hunt directing again would have helped a lot, but I’m inclined to agree OHMSS would be too high a mountain to climb. But that’s also because it’s stood alone for 56 years as this unique cult classic. It is what it is, and works better that way.
Once you kill off a major character you can’t do it again with the same results. So OHMSS always was a singularity in the Bond universe.
But it would have been interesting to see Lazenby settle into the role. His DAF would have been very different in tone, for sure, but there is an alternate timeline with Lazenby (if he had not been so dumb to trust his dumber agent) which could have catapulted him into a very successful Bond career. Or not.
Would it have been comfort food?
Depends on the sort of comfort one is looking for.
It would have meant Lazenby going… um… LTK-like rogue to kill Blofeld?
Yes, and could he generate comfort? Lazenby strikes me as too angular for comfort food status.
No toupee askew. No pink tie. No embodied casualness in the performance.
I think DAF can be experienced as comfort food, since Connery was so comfortable, as were all the other key players who returned: Adam, Barry, Bassey, Hamilton, and Moore.
Or You Only Live Twice-like rogue; in the book Bond immediately decides to keep stumm about Shatterhand’s identity as he knew the Americans would never let him close to Blofeld. So that LTK rogue element, too, is something Fleming did first. Maybe another universally acknowledged truth (that Eon came up with this) debunked.
Back to Fleming!
It’s the gift that never stops giving, but ironically, rarely gives.
Another fiction.
Moonraker and Thunderball may or may not be cinematic masterpieces, but they’re at least as strong as the films that preceded them and inarguably Roger and Sean are more assured and confident in their 4th outings than any (even if TB was sort of a last hurrah for Connery’s enthusiasm). Meanwhile Brosnan and Craig’s tenures lost their way after their FIRST outings, not their third.
I have a feeling any sideswipe that begins with “it is universally acknowledged” is destined to end up in the “Fiction” bin, but who knows? As the saying goes, “All generalizations are false, including this one.”
It’s only fiction because of Roger Moore’s tenure. Moore, as far as I’m concerned, hit his stride on the back end of his tenure. I’ll take the stretch of FYEO through AVTAK over the rest of his tenure without hesitation.
The rest of the actors had their tenures really start to go off the rails after the third film.
In terms of comfort food the 1971 Wint and Kidd Masterclass is the ultimate smorgasbord in the series. Nearly every line of dialogue is laced with humour and I really enjoy that. It’s entirely possible we missed out on an all time great sequel with Lazenby, but at the end of the day I’m also a realist who appreciates what I actually have.
As the old saying goes, growth happens outside your comfort zone.
September 3
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the most financially successful Bond films deserve to be; likewise the least financially successful deserve their fate.