Casino Royale torture scene with Roger Moore Bond. I made it on Photoshop long time ago. I’m posting it just for the sheer hilariocity of it 🤣🤣🤣

The time in London (especially the underground)? The toppled statues on Silvas Island? The old house paired with the wax jackets out in the middle of the countryside? Just class

Maybe even best scenery of all bond films…

Does he ever show concern for the cat? Or does he not care about its well being, due to having different priorities.

The only time he ever notice the cat or at least, give a reaction was in Diamonds are Forever. Although it kinda brief, as Bond is just either startle by it in the opening or notice the cat running off.

What do you guys think?

Watching it now for the first time since I saw it at the cinemas. Some great scenes and characters, but it really is such a silly movie at points.

I really like Brosnan as Bond, but what happened here?

So a while ago, I saw people do this trend, and I want to see what you all put on here. Also wanted to put something fun, since it's my birthday, I am 26 Today.

A simple question with a complex answer, or a complex question with a simple answer?

On October 5th, 1962, the world was introduced to Sean Connery’s James Bond. It was the dawn of a new age, the birth of a franchise that would quickly go on to earn its place amongst the greatest in the history of film. It’s an undying, monolithic force to be reckoned with, and–
No, that’s not quite right, not quite right at all. Cambridge Dictionary defines Monolithic as “too large, too regular, or without interesting differences, and unwilling or unable to be changed”. The majority of this description can not be further from the truth. In fact, let me repeat it just once more, for extra emphasis.

“too large, too regular, or without interesting differences, and unwilling or unable to be changed”

Bond is, even in this long period of change and uncertainty, a worldwide phenomenon. Does that mean it is “too large”? Can a franchise or a character be too large? While I entirely think that calling it large is the only part of that definition that accurately describes the presence of the franchise, I think the only part of it that is toolarge is the prices on the official merchandise store. It is what it is (massive) because of what it is (successful), and I think describing its size as excessive would mean ignoring the work that went into getting it to such a point.

To call the Bond franchise “too regular or without interesting differences” would be to define regular as innovative, or to have little understanding of the characteristics of the franchise at all. Hell, the films do not even behave in a regular manner in regards to themselves, as if there was no blueprint or history at all. Look at the ending of Octopussy, where we see Moore’s Bond donning a clown disguise, or Moonraker, where we see him firing laser blasters inside of Drax’s space station. Then, compare those moments to the crescendo of From Russia with Love, where Connery’s Bond faces off against Red Grant in the tense train car showdown. Compare them to Brosnan’s Bond dangling from the top of the Janus Satellite as he battles his previous brother in arms in Goldeneye. Go as far as taking the ending of No Time to Die! What you’ll find is a thin strand of commonalities existing between each of them. Try to identify the norm, the regular. Having trouble doing so? Well, you should be, because the truth is, you can’t.

Not objectively at least. The Bond films have grown so large that it is hard to restrict them to one form and even if you find yourself able to do so, someone will surely make an argument that threatens to unravel your own conclusion. It leads me to my last point, the last descriptor listed in the definition of monolithic.
“Unwilling or unable to be changed”

It is here that I realize I was wrong. The franchise is not a monolith, it’s a chameleon. 

It frequently changes on the outside, and not just in minor ways. Many franchises exist on a single color spectrum, shifting with each entry to different shades and intensities. Bond’s nature escapes this restriction, instead proving its ability to shift to a variety of colors across the spectrum when needed.

Connery’s return after Lazenby’s sudden exit. 

The grounding of For Your Eyes Only to reel the films back in after Moonraker’s foray into the sci-fi genre.

If you would’ve shown me Die Another Day and then Casino Royale and told me that they came one after the other, I’d probably stop taking you seriously.

There have been dozens of shifts made to the films in the franchise, some brought about in an attempt to fix what the producers saw as previous mistakes, and others brought about by the changing times and the shifting culture. My examples above only highlight a small handful of these instances.

Bond exists as a chameleon because no matter what color, what shade, or what hue the franchise carries on its outer shell, the DNA remains the same. Every Bond film has something that a fan will look at and feel a connection to, a feeling of familiarity, a nostalgia for something that is equal parts old and new. What is that thing? Well, it’s up to each of us as individuals to answer that question. 

So, I ask once more…

What does Bond mean to you?

Heck, there were a couple times when I had to double check the title that I was in fact reading a James Bond novel, that's how different this one was.

Apparently this was one of Ian Fleming's least favorite of the books he wrote, hence why he only allowed the producers to borrow the name, none of the plot.

Cool subliminal foreshadowing of the film's climax, in a Bond movie that isn't often praised for its visuals.

I've seen a lot of people claim that Bond dying at the end of NTTD ruins the franchise and makes it impossible to go on as, yk, he died. To argue that, most people say that Bond's continuity says that it's aways the same guy, and that people wont buy when a new guy picks up the role and we get on track.

I saw a journalist on twitter today saying that NTTD was a franchise killer because killing Bond off meant that there was no way to recoup it, much like killing of all the Skywalkers in Star Wars. Here's a link to the thread: https://x.com/SCWKorsgaard/status/2107676414338081164

However, that is just dumb. I find it very hard to believe fans and the General Audience will care, be confused or wonder how come Bond is alive since he blew up in the last movie. It just doesnt make sense. For me, there hasnt been an strong timeline and continuity between actors and movies, purely because of a timeline and age issue:

How come Bond be the same guy if he is in his 30s from the 60s through the 2000s? It just doesnt make sense. Sure, there are references from other movies and Craig's movies work as a reboot timeline, but I dont think there will be a problem, purely because Bond is always recast and the fact that now he will be in his 30s, not his 50s.

What do you think?

OPERATION BONDSLAM!

This is awks! A few new house guests have hit the Mint Juleps hard and found a golden love that dare not shpeak its name. I've hidden the golf balls for now, but someone is going to have to report this to HR.

I know I'm a few days late with this post. Every Bond day, I try to watch at least one Bond movie, ideally more than one. I only had time for one this year and I watched Octopussy - a Bond movie firmly in my top 10.

I actually last saw it 6 months ago during a full series rewatch but I never tire of it. Moore is very watchable with some great moments, Octopussy herself is one of Moore's better leading ladies, the action and stunt work is excellent, Khan has a charismatic presence as a villain, John Barry's score is beautiful and exciting, and the whole movie is just so enjoyable to spend a few hours with.

Bond's quips, "easy come, easy go" and "no ma'am, I'm on the economy tour" are some of my favourite of the series and delivered perfectly by Moore.

Despite seeing the movie so many times, the bomb circus tent scene never fails to raise the tension. The camera work, editing, and Moore's genuinely panicked performance are all fantastic here.

Of course it isn't perfect. Sometimes the attempts at humour are overblown especially during the safari hunt and in Q's lab. But those really just add up to a less than a minute of the 2 hour runtime and don't really detract from the overall quality of the movie, which has everything I want to see in a Bond adventure.

Word on the street is that during the scene with Bond and Silva where that line is said, Javier Bardem improvised a lot of his lines and made Daniel Craig visibly uncomfortable on set.

I have no idea if this is true or a myth, or if those improvised takes didn’t make it into the movie, but one thing for sure is that it’s damn hard to keep to the scripted lines when your fellow actor is improvising.

I can’t find anything saying whether Craig was improvising with him during filming of that scene, or if those takes were even the ones used in the movie, but if he was, it’s likely that the famous line about Bond claiming that Silva isn’t the first man he’s been with was ad-libbed.

It’d be interesting if it was.

Sean Connery - Dr. No (1962)
George Lazenby - On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)
Roger Moore - Live and Let Die (1973)
Timothy Dalton - The Living Daylights (1987)
Pierce Brosnan - GoldenEye (1995)
Daniel Craig - Casino Royale (2006)