I actually like George Lazenby as James Bond. That was pretty much the best film of the bunch.

Are you kidding me?

I wouldn't agree with the claim that it was "pretty much the best film of the bunch", but its story surely rivals any other Bond story. In fact, short of Casino Royal, it probably had the richest narrative of all the Bond stories. The man gets married only to see his wife tragically shot down when he was the target!!! I mean, need I say more???

As for Lazenby, I too believe that he impersonated Bond like no other. Connery was great, but he had his ups and downs and was somewhat of a caricature at times. Lazenby plays Bond very much in line with the way Craig has in the last two, and I believe that their way is much more in line with the character in the novels.

Oh yeah, and Lazenby is amazingly handsome.

I was thinking, I guess, more of large-scale franchises like Star Trek--with many sequels and different captains, science officers, etc.--as well as the films that are consistently remade...

There are a TON of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens versions out there, and "Jane Eyre" just got made for the umpteenth time,,,and then there's another author who's remade almsot every few years, it seems, owing to his extensive body of 37 different works...

But I wasn't going to post THAT cast list for fear of starting this off with him AGAIN.

And so I waited for another film franchise or perennial remake to be introduced first instead...but that took a couple days, and I'd given the thread up for dead. :p



And GEORGE LAZENBY, SD?! :O

I have to agree with Gunfigher--are you kidding???

Have you never HEARD of Brosnan or King Connery? ;) (And I'd put Roger Moore agead of him too...he's campy, but at least he's more fun to watch, he's really enjoying himself as Bond, and "Live and Let Die" is a Top 10 Bond flick.)

BROSNAN????
WHAT???? Hells no! He's the worst, by far! Christ! I prefer T. Dalton to him, and even Roger was better.

Get me straight: I'm not saying that Lazenby fits really well with the way others have portrayed him on the screen. I'm saying he did a really good job at portraying Bond himself, the way he was written by Flemming. And I urge you to see his movie again right before seeing one of Craig's. You'll see the resemblances, I promise.

Oh, and if it's not obvious yet: my favourite Bond is Daniel Craig. Again, I'm mostly thinking of the books.

@Cachimbo:

Therein lies the problem...

I DON'T LIKE Craig's Bond overall. ;)

He's a BRUTE! When I think of James Bond, I think of an update to my great hero, Sherlock Holmes...

British, unsurpassable intellect, lives for the case and the adventure (though Bond enjoys the "finer points" more than Holmes), suave, almost enver off his guard, and when he is, he ALWAYS rebounds and finds a way out of it with his WITS.

I CANNOT picture Sherlock Holmes forcing a man to drink motor oil in a rage in the middle of a desert.

Nor can I see Connery's Bond doing that.
Or Brosnan's.
Or Moore's.
Or even Lazenby's.

They're all too suave, too intelligent, too GOOD for that...such brutish behavior's beneath them!

Between that and Bond having no gadgets and not being smart and suave so much as impulsive, it makes Bond no different then any other B-list action hero...

And that's too good for the (spiritual) great-great-great-grandson of Sherlock Holmes! :/

So funny you mention Sherlock: I've just begun the adventure of reading through all of Conan Doyle's books that feature Holmes. And one thing is certain to me, though I would not argue here, and not with you, on that subject (as I believe I do not know enough on it): for intelligent and that he is, and witty, Holmes is also prone to violent outbursts. His predilection for boxing, and his great physical agility, make him maybe a touch more nuanced of a character than what you painted.

I'm also not arguing that there is a tradition of a suave Bond and that Craig's personification of that character is clashing with it. You must keep in mind, however, that we're currently witnessing the birth of that Bond you love so much, a birth that was very violent. I don't see anything in the Connery movies that make such a birth impossible, nor unlikely. In fact, it seems necessary. And if you don't believe Bond to be a vindictive and violent man, I urge you to see Lazenby's movie again, as well as the following ones: much of Bond's career is fuelled by his desire to avenge his wife's death (which is again echoed in the Bond trilogy we're currently privy to).

I think the beauty of grand British characters is how they are conflicted: Holmes is a genius, but also a drug addict who needs the adrenaline rush of a good fight. Bond is sophisticated, but is more or less a lethal weapon used by MI-6, and in fact the best they have at taking care of such business. It's those nuances and almost contradictions that make those characters so grand.

And Brosnan is the WORST?

...

How???

He's Connery minus the ass-kicking awesomeness..but you can't hold that against him, no one can top Connery there...

In a battle of kickassery, only Harrison Ford's Indy and Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name approach the sheer awesome factor of the Connery Bond...

But Brosnan had the BRAINS to be Bond! Again, HE is totally believable as following in that Sherlock Holmes/James Bond/Doctor Who tradition--it would seem--of the modern British hero being stronger with his wits and his words than his brute strength, and Brosnan always had the right word for the occaision, like Connery before him.

Just look at their film achievements:

Brosnan Bond: Saves the world four times from a vengeful friend (GoldenEye is Top 5), a press-started WWIII (I actually really like TND, underrated, I think, with an innovative new villain, really showing the way that the media IS taking over in our lives a la FOX News and MSNBC's brainwashings), a...really odd oil-battle-plot-thing (OK, TWINE is the worst of his four, but still, at least Q got an unforgettable sendoff) and stopping a giant satellite from being used as a laser-beam doomsday machine (OK, that sounds an awful lot like Diamonds Are Forever, but only because..it is, and at 20 films, I guess you're bound to want to recycle a plot idea or two, but as CGI and action-heavy as it is, Brosnan's still sharp as ever, even if he is showing his age...)

Now.

Daniel Craig as Bond has:

-Blwon up a weapon's facility on his assignment there, only getting the bomb-maker and letting the main terrorist get away, thus pissing off M...

-Got beat at poker and had to take someone else's chips to keep playing (Brosnan and Connery NEVER lost at cards! EPIC BOND FAIL!) ;)

-Was stupid enough to not pay attention to what he was drinking and nearly died of poison and had to be saved by his Bond girl

-Couldn't save his bond girl from drowning

-Let ANOTHER Bond girl die by being covered in oil (Brosnan was 4/4, NEVER lost a Bond girl to death, and Connery only lost 1, I think, so he's already failing here...)

-Kinda-sorta-maybe avenged the first bond girl while blowing tons of stuff up.



Not a good side-by-side. ;)

Brosnan made all the nuances I spoke of dim and uninteresting. He's good for characters like in the Thomas Crown Affair, but not for a Bond.

And you can't fault Craig for the character's "birth": in the last 2 movies, Bond is becoming the Bond you guys love so much. I think it's quite terrible, from the perspective of the narrative, to posit a hero such as Bond who would have from birth all the talents you so love in that hero. The man has to learn! He's got to go through stuff to become who he is. And again, it's been a long time since I've read them, and the details are blurry, but that is much more in line with the character Flemming wrote.

@Cachimbo:

If you like Conan Doyle's Holmes (and as the only guy I like more than him wears tights and carries a skull around while speaking pretentiously, I REALLY hope you like him, he's such a great character!) I suggest, from the deepest portion of my heart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th-szfFtwys

Jeremy Brett is THE Sherlock Holmes on-screen. His TV version of Holmes is acclaimed by nearly all we Sherlockians as the most accurate, definitive version of the Sherlock Holmes world, and ESPECIALLY of Sherlock himself, he's almost point for point exactly what most readers expect in the Great Detective (and Arthur's son Adrian has hailed him as being accurate to his father's vision as well.)

Brett did 44 of the 56 stories/novels, so if you like that episode--all are versions of the original stories, and this is one of the best stories and episodes, "The Red Circle," plenty of murder mystery, Sherlock using his brain and action skills, and some Italian mafia and opera for good measure--there are a TON more! :)

Why do I bring up Brett?

On the whole "Sherlock could be violent" thing, I think you might have a different idea of how Sherlock could be violent/action-ish due to the new RDJ version (which is...basically like the reboot of Star Trek in 2009--nowhere near as intellectual or deep as the original, and far more action-y, but a decent foundation is laid, and hopefully the sequel can get back to the depth we're used to.)

Sherlock Holmes devoted himself ENTIRELY to whatever he was doing at the moment, and that's usually solving mysteries; he's quoted as saying his brother Mycroft is probably smarter than he is, but lacks the energy to ever pursue things as doggedly as Holmes does (as Brett re-enacts so wonderfully, he'd throw himself to the floor like a dog and dig around for loose floorboards, or try and pick up scents, or do whatever it took to get a lead.)

So he IS very active, but he's RARELY violent in a physical, fist-a-cuffs way; he KNOWS how to box, but that's because, again, he wants to be the best at what he does, and that means knowing how to fight because, when you deal with the criminal element of Holmes' London, chances are you'll get in some brawls.

Holmes RARELY fought, and even more rarely was it anything major; the one big fight he had was the infamous fight with Professor Moriarty where both plunged over the side of Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland to their suppposed deaths in "The Final Problem" (only to have Sherlock survive by popular demand--Conan Doyle really had intended Holmes to die there--and return a few years later on in "The Empty House," where he tells how he survived the fall, hid out from Moriarty's gang in Western Europe for the last few years, and now seeks to get rid of the last remnants of his gang and return to business.) :)

But other than that, Holmes was FAR more adept with his mind, and would usually logic his way out of a crisis...and if it DID come to fighting, WATSON was often the one involved; he used to be an Army medical surgeon, so he keeps an Amry revolver with him at all times, so when there are guns drawn, more oftne then not it's Watson with the revolver vs. another amn, and Holmes trying to talk them down...I think Watson only actually fires his revolver in something like two or three stories.)



So Holmes was TRAINED to be physical, yes, but he almsot never uses it, at all, and NEVER uses it in a torturous way like Craig's forcing a man to drink motor oil; for Holmes, that's just not logical, he wants answers, and doing that isn't going to get him anywhere...and HE always considered it below himself. :p

Daniel Craig > pierce brosnan. Much more realistic character and truer to the bond of the novels. Not to mention the movies with brosnan are dreadful, especially Die Another Day and TWINE.

I think the thing of it is: if you enjoy the novels, you like Craig and Lazenby. If you only know Bond via film, you like Connery.

Finally not alone...! Thanks Tom!

As for Holmes, I did read a few already and I believe that he's more conflicted than you seem to think. You didn't address his addictions, for example, nor his great penchant for melancholia.
Let me read them anew and I'll post on it again in a bit.

As for Bond: he's not Holmes. Sure they share some traits (and I've identified a few), but Bond is a killer. That's just what the character is. And Craig and Lazenby gave that killer a soul, whereas I find other portrayals often got the soul (the suave intelligence) at the cost of the true nature (Connery did okay on that, but not equally well in all of his movies).
Finally, I think it important to distinguish the actor and his talent from the demands of the film maker. Craig could maybe not play the Bond that Connery was asked to play (though Connery obviously would have been able to play the Bond Craig is playing -- proof is in Untouchables, Zardoz and Outland).

Having said that, I still think that Craig is close to the imagined character on the whole than Connery was (who was my favourite for a long, long time). And I would argue that Lazenby was a close second (though I still preferred to watch Connery most of the time).

Me is with SD!

@ obi - "NEVER lost a Bond girl to death" - Paris Carver? Also, You're crediting the actor who played James Bond with achieving the things that were written in the script? Nonsense. By that logic, Connery is far and away the worst Bond if you look at Goldfinger (the film, not our fellow webdipper). What does he accomplish in that movie? He, uhh, he successfully "seduces" (*cough* *cough*) Pussy Galore, and is so good at sex he turns her straight. That's about all he manages to do. Seriously, the newly non-lesbian (and also therefore non-evil) Pussy Galore does everything else. Also, why would radioactive gold be worthless? Don't get me wrong, I love that movie, but it's at least partly because so much is wrong with it.

I also kinda feel that having the character not be good at stuff adds tension to the plot, which surely, is the point in an action spy thriller. I mean, even in Casino Royale we never really thought Bond would outright fail, but it was always possible things would get even worse, before he managed to fix them. Also obiwan, you're saying that Brosnan was a better Bond because he never had to deal with loss or the consequences of his poor decisions? Aren't you the guy who loves tragedy? Surely you understand why CraigBond being heartbroken over the death of Vesper is a much better story than BrosnanBond lazily having sex with the latest Bond girl who also didn't die, and having everyone back home be happy with him forever yay!

Also while we're on the subject of adaptations of characters from pulp, mystery, adventure, thriller type novels, and Sherlock Holmes. What'd you all think of the recent Sherlock Holmes adaptation with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law?

@mafia

As just a movie, I thought it was mediocre. As an adaptation of Holmes, I thought it was horrific. Stupid plot, poor representation of Watson, really cheesy "cliffhanger" for next movie. All around failure.

I personally think that is duo could be as hot as newman and redford were once. The first movie wasn't all that great, but it was great fun and I'm expecting the next one to be really good.

@Cachimbo:

"As for Holmes, I did read a few already and I believe that he's more conflicted than you seem to think. You didn't address his addictions, for example, nor his great penchant for melancholia."

Oh, I just stopped talking about Holmes for fear of a "tl;dr" notification. :)

Yes, I know all about the cocaine addiction and manic-depressiveness...that's why he's commonly cited by David Shore as an inspiration for Dr. Gregory House (of whome I'm also a fan...though does anyone agree that the original crew was the best, Seasons 1-4 were the best, 5-6 were meh, and 7 was good...except that ending was FULL OF WTF?!?!) :/

He's definitely conflicted, I'm not arguing that.

I'm just saying he's not a THUG...which is what Daniel Craig--and Timothy Dalton, when he's not looking like he's asleep on-set--seem like...

And Thug =/= Holmes or Bond.

That's why Connery is the undisputed champ in most fans opinions (or at least most film fan's opinions.)

He had the complexity of having lost a wife in his six films and having that conflict, but he never seemed like a thug, and AWLAYS talked his way out of danger when he could.

Case in point, for Bonds getting out of danger:

Conenr in the most famous Bond scene and line of all-time...

"Do you expect me to talk?"
"NO, Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!"

And what does Connery do?

TALK Goldfinger into shutting off his laser...JUST before he loses his 00's! ;)

All four Brosnan films end with him fighting the main baddie, but also in all four he persuades someone to switch sides and help him out using his WORDS...

He didn't BEAT it out of them or il-can it out of them like Craig did.

(Or shove someone in the trunk of his car before a chase, for that matter.)



Holmes, Connery, and Brosnan talked it out.
Holmes and Connery almost always had good stories/films.
Brosnan was split--GoldenEYe was great, TND was good, TWINE was bad, and DAD was CGI blah...

But in all four films, BROSNAN was good, and got great reviews as Bond.

@mafialligator:

That's from TWINE, right? Yeah, I didn't count eh "Bad" bond girls, and she was the bad guy, er, girl, right, the nuclear physicist was the "good" bond girl, and she lived...

(I'm posting this now, and responding to the rest of your response, but wanted to get this out there so you ddin't think I responded to Cachimbo and not you.)

Actually no, Paris Carver was one of the Bond girls from Tomorrow Never Dies, played by Teri Hatcher. She isn't bad herself, but she is married to the main bad guy. (Who's name, IIRC is also Carver, that was supposed to be the tip off.)

And Craig isn't a thug. He kills certainly, but what on earth did you expect an MI6 agent to do? He's clever, resourceful, he's suave in his way, without coming off as supercilious. He's just also a little reckless, and headstrong. If you really want to see an actual thug you need to watch some crime dramas my friend. Also, the idea of talking (or sexing) someone into changing sides is patently ridiculous and never plays well on the screen.
Brosnan never got good reviews as Bond I don't know what you're talking about. He brought zero energy to the role. Most review I read (which, to be fair weren't a lot) always seemed to say Brosnan seemed bored by the role, as though he couldn't wait to get to the craft services table once the shot was over.

By comparison Craig's performances as Bond have been full of tension and intensity. Here is a man, you think, who would do ANYTHING, to get the job done.

And for the record I would downgrade your evaluations of each Brosnan film by one level: Goldeneye was good; Tomorrow Never Dies was alright; The World Is Not Enough was bad (I agree with you there) and Die Another Day was among the worst films I have ever seen. It is within walking distance of Deafula, "Manos" The Hands of Fate, Space Mutiny and The Room, in terms of awfulness.

@mafialligator Part II:

"By that logic, Connery is far and away the worst Bond if you look at Goldfinger (the film, not our fellow webdipper). What does he accomplish in that movie? He, uhh, he successfully "seduces" (*cough* *cough*) Pussy Galore, and is so good at sex he turns her straight. That's about all he manages to do. Seriously, the newly non-lesbian (and also therefore non-evil) Pussy Galore does everything else."

Well, he also DID talk Goldfinger out of his plans--which included singing his 00's--for a while and delaying Operation Grand Slam, and he DID knock GoldenEye out of the plane...and he DID track him down in the first place, and so on...007 did plenty in the film.

"Also, why would radioactive gold be worthless? Don't get me wrong, I love that movie, but it's at least partly because so much is wrong with it."

Because then it'd be contaminated and unsuited for use...I'm not a gold/trade expert, but I can make the leap of faith to buy that plot line for a 1960s spy movie, it's not too implausible, there are FAR worse implausibilites, Goldfinger's plan at least makes sense on a basic level, ie, depreciate the value of the gold in Fort Knox to make his more valuable and thus give him economic dominance...it's a bit shaky, I'll admit, and if this were a serious drama, I'd take issue with it, but for a Bond film, I can buy that easily.

And I honestly would rank "Goldfinger" as the #1 Bond film of all-time, if only because, quite honestly, that's sort of THE Bond movie, it has every single last thing in it that's traditional with Bond:

Gunbarrel sequence (and done the RIGHT way, not the "spruced-up" new way Craig does it, that really actually bothers me...it's a tradition! 40+ eyars of history, get ir right, leave it be! For "Casino Royale" I didn't mind, since he was just becoming a 00 in that moment, I said, "OK, it makes sense to change it up a bit," but they could've done it the right way for QOS...I LOATHE that film, it's a MESS! CR was alright, a 7-8/10, and a Top 10 Bond flick--despite Craig's C-at-best-Bond, but again, he's still learning--but QOS was horrible!)...

Traditional theme song...

Pre-title sequence...

Special movie theme song (and Shirley Basset's "Goldfinger" is probably the most famous of all the "Bond songs" besides the main theme)...

Meeting with M...

Meeting with Q...and sorry, it is NOT Bond without at least a token gadget...you
don't have to go CGI car like they did for "Die Another Day," but a trick grenade pen or recording pin or--a very LOGICAL gadget that makes perfect sense for a modern Bond and is one of my favorites--a remote control for the car on the cellphone like in "Tomorrow Never Dies"...I love Llewelynn and miss him, and agree his legacy should be honored, but it's not Bond without Q, he's so blustery, he's almost a psuedo-Watson figure for the 5 minutes he's on screen...need him back...

Classic Bond Villains (Goldfinger and Oddjob, two of the best in one film)...

Classic Bond "capture-escape-capture-escape" routine...

Bond's Aston Martin...

Bond Girl (and you ahve the most infamously-named one in Pussy Galore...they sure could get away with a LOT more in the 1960s!)... ;)

Bond talking to the villain to get the evil plan out...

Bond escaping with gadgets ("Ejector seat? You're joking." "I NEVER joke about my work, 007.")...

Final battle...

Bond and Bond Girl at the end ("Thish ish no time to be reshcued!" *Cue rape-ish sex scene!*) :p

Every inch of it is THE Bond film with THE Bond, Connery, who's the best of both worlds, the Brosna-suave and the Craig-rough.

"I also kinda feel that having the character not be good at stuff adds tension to the plot, which surely, is the point in an action spy thriller. I mean, even in Casino Royale we never really thought Bond would outright fail, but it was always possible things would get even worse, before he managed to fix them. Also obiwan, you're saying that Brosnan was a better Bond because he never had to deal with loss or the consequences of his poor decisions? Aren't you the guy who loves tragedy? Surely you understand why CraigBond being heartbroken over the death of Vesper is a much better story than BrosnanBond lazily having sex with the latest Bond girl who also didn't die, and having everyone back home be happy with him forever yay!"

First, things didn't always turn out the best for Brosnan, either--he had to fight once-best-friend Alec Trevelyen in "GoldenEye" and kill him off...

He was TORTURED FOR A YEAR in "Die Another Day"...

Brosnan's Bond had his share of darker, grimmer moments--my point is he always retained at least a glimmer of Bond.

Case in point:

When BrosnanBond faces his lowest point--the torture--he takes it like a man, never breaks, and when he gets out, tells M flatly he didn't ask to be let out and he knows the rules, "No deals."

When CraigBond loses Vesper, he loses all perspective and flies off the handle completely and almost aimlessly for half the next film until the clues fall into his lap.

(Plus, just from a story POV, the whole Vesper thing was Far too much of a coda and far too rushed, that should have happened earlier in the film, I like the card-playing scenes, but we could've seen a bit less of that and had Vesper's turn come earlier if that's what they wanted to do, to flesh it out more, it felt more like "And so Bond compelted his first mission, and was born--oh, and he then quit and hd a fling with a girl who then turned and then died and he was pissed she died and so Bond takes an automatic rifle and shoots a man in the leg just to look badass and setup the sequel--THE END! CUE MUSIC!"


"What'd you all think of the recent Sherlock Holmes adaptation with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law?"

I still haven't seen the full-full movie, but I've read all the reviews and plot summaries and whatnot...

Like I said before, it reminds me of Star Trek 2009--I don't have to flinch at the awful butchy of a hero onscreen, but it's nowhere as deep as the original was...

But with a successful flick under their belt, hopefully they can give a Holmes 2 that will be worthy of the name.

I WILL say, just from a casting point of view:

I get Jude Law as Watson, a good choice there (he was actually in an episode of Jeremy Brett's TV series.)

I DON'T get RDJ...he looks NOTHING like Holmes.

At all.

He doesn't look like the Basil Rathbone Holmes, or the Peter Cushing Holmes, or the Jeremy Brett Holmes...

He's a bit on the bulky-side, his hair, rathe than being sleek and neatly back as Conan Doyle describes, is all over the place relative to the others, he's unkepmt, which Holmes could be, but RDJ is too unkempt too often...

He just doesn't look and feel quite right for the part.

But here's why I mention Star Trek 2009--I was under the impression that this was just Sherlock Holmes, not YOUNG Sherlock Holmes, a Holmes just starting out...and as he already has a reputation in this film, that seems to be the case.

If they case RDJ as a YOUNG Holmes, yes, I'd buy that, the same way I can buy Chris Pine as a young, raw, not-quite-yet-Kirk Captain Kirk.

So if THAT'S what they went with--or if they decide to go that route--then I can buy that, and I think that'd be far more interesting than just dealing with the grown Holmes for the upteenth time (true fact: Holmes is the most filmed character in cinematic and TV history!) Conan Doyle never DID give too much about Holme's teen/early 20s years, and never told exactly how he and Watson met...

THAT direction with RDJ and Jude Law would have been a better way to go.

As it stands...it doesn't look God-awful, but he just sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the other Holmes, and he comes across as more the lovechild of Indiana Jones and Dr. House than truly Sherlock Holmes.

@abgemacht:

"As just a movie, I thought it was mediocre. As an adaptation of Holmes, I thought it was horrific. Stupid plot, poor representation of Watson, really cheesy "cliffhanger" for next movie. All around failure."

Oh dear.

...

Maybe its for the best I haven't seen the full version yet, then...this could be the Ethan Hawke "Hamlet" all over again...!

I know they screwed around with Irene Adler, but was Jude Law really horrible as Watson? :/

@Cachimbo:

"As for Bond: he's not Holmes. Sure they share some traits (and I've identified a few), but Bond is a killer."

See?

Therein lies the problem.

Book-readers, I suppose, will see Bond more of an assassin than a spy/sleuth.

For those of us who know Bond by the films, however, we know him--for the most part--best by the latter, as shown by Connery and Brosnan (and for camp-fun, Moore, if you're willing to watch a sillier Bond for a couple of hours.)

First of all, as to Goldfinger. I do like that movie. I'm just sayin'. Also yes, I understand the plot that contaminating the gold supply would make it useless as gold...except that in real life, no one actually spends the gold in Fort Knox. It isn't actually used as anything. And they clearly state that the gold would stop being radioactive in about 60 some odd years (so in about 2020). I just don't understand why the fact that no one could do anything with the Fort Knox gold for 60 years is such a big deal. Nothing has been done with the Fort Knox gold in the last 60 years anyway.

I think saying that being superhumanly suave and cool is necessary to being Bond is kinda ridiculous. It sorta buys into the cartoon, the caricature that Bond had become towards the end of the Brosnan tenure. The films were just becoming downright laughable and the performances were basically just there so that they would have something nice looking to arrange the CGI set pieces and completely ridiculous action sequences around. Granted the action sequences in the Craig films are as ridiculous and far fetched in terms of the laws of physics and the limitations of the human body, but on screen they look like they could be real, and that's the important difference. I realize this is a matter of opinion, but I think the sprawling political intrigue plot is a lot more interesting than the "Classic Bond villain with a plan to destroy the world" thing. When your villain's plot sounds like something Austin Powers would have to thwart it's time to go back to the drawing board (even if you're making an Austin Powers film). If the villain makes me laugh, you've done something wrong. You're saying it's not a good Bond film because it's missing all the cliches? You have to realize, the Bond cliches were keeping everyone but you from seeing the movies. They'd become ridiculous, a kind of unintentional self parody.
Now I agree Quantum of Solace was not the best film in the Bond oeuvre, but it's certainly not a bad film, by any stretch of the imagination.

On to Sherlock Holmes
Really RDJ as a YOUNG Holmes? Robert Downey Jr. is in his mid 40s.

I haven't read a lot of Sherlock Holmes, but I don't recall finding the stories particularly deep. They were just kinda the standard popular fiction mystery novel. Maybe I missed something but I didn't find them any more sophisticated or literary than an Agatha Christie novel.

And if you haven't seen the film you won't get why they went with Robert Downey Jr. Have you seen any other film with him in it? There's a very specific kind of performance he can turn in that really I've only ever seen him do well. And you either love it or hate it. And I dunno. I think he's great. He blends the sort of, slightly detached, eccentric Holmes thing with his own usual schtick, and I thought it worked quite well. But yeah, I thought some elements of the film were silly and I'm hoping the next one will be better, but even if it's about the same I'd still go to see it, cause I had fun watching it.

OK so BrosnanBond was tortured for a year. If you missed the prologue of the movie, would you be able to tell that by his performance? Does it affect his character in any way through the rest of the film...? It motivates some of his actions I suppose, in a detached academic sort of way, but it doesn't seem to impact him at all. In fact through all the Brosnan and Moore and even some of the Connery Bond films, though not always, characters seem to exist as archetypes, completely not changing though the film. No growth, no learning, no changing. Status quo ante is god. And that worked for the time. But popular entertainment has changed. Nowadays, in drama people like it when characters undergo something called "character development", and they like when actions earlier on in a series have consequences later.

OK...

Maybe a YOUNGER RDJ could have worked as a young SH. ;)

But even now, yes, I think it could have worked...keep in mind the other three "big" Sherlock actors I mentioned--Basil, Peter Cusching, and Brett.

Basil and Cushing, at least, definitely looked older in their 40s than RDJ, so he still kind of would've worked for a "younger" version of their Holmes...Brett was--damn him!--so perfect, age-wise and everything, it would be less of a fit, but then again, like I said, RDJ is NOT my first choice as Holmes.

Who would make a good choice now?

Not Brosnan or Craig (obviously, neither work, even putting Bond-stigmas aside), Ewan McGregor just doesn't fit (plus he'd ahve to dye his hair to the Holmes black), David Tennant's too young, and doesn't look the part anyway...James McAvoy doesn't work...

I dunno.

Really, that's why it was a shock to me there was a film being made, there are no Holmes-perfect actors out there, at least none I can think of.

As for the Holmes mysteries...

It depends what you mean by "deep," and depends on the story.

There are 56 short stories and 4 novels--so obviously the novels are going to be deeper in terms of plot and growing the story.

As far as the actual plots go...a weird analogy, but they sort of work like Star Trek or--I'm told, still ahven't seen too many--Doctor Who:

Short time-wise, but with some deeper conflicts that leaves the reader guessing "What would *I* ahve done in Person A's shoes?" or "Was Person B or C right?"

And it's definitely a plus that, while Holmes always solves the case--with one notable semi-exception--the endings are REALLY varied...you have everything from "and the happy couple of young lovers, free from the evil man's plot to frame the groom, were wed, and they all lived happily ever after" to "and Holmes solved the case and everyone's lives were, if anything, worse for the dark, unsettling truth."

As an example, take the first Holmes story I ever loved--the one that got me hooked--"The Solitary Cyclist." (Odd I'd like this one so much, since Conan Doyle even said it wasn't one of his better ones, but whatever.)

A young woman bikes to work every day in the country, until one day she notices that she's being followed by another cyclist. She loses him after a while, but as she rides to work the enext day, there the cyclist is again. And again the next day. And the next.

So, of course, eventually it's time for a trip to 221B Baker Street, and Sherlock Holmes, without her saying so, correctly deduces that the woman is a music teacher (he figures this out by the indentations along her fingers, "spatulated" in the shake of piano keys and not, as Watson suggested, typist keys, so this and her attitude lead to his deduction that she's a normally-sunny music teacher) and a cyclist (her shoes are scuffed along the edges in a manner corresponding to the pedals of a bike.)

The lady tells Holmes of her predicament, and he and Watson set off to stake out the path where the madame cyclist rides, both to be sure she's safe and see what they can see about her stalker. As she rides by the next day, the stalker, sure enough, comes from another side of the road and follows for a length, and Watson is careful enough to trail him to the town he rides to--but he's fouled up, and has made himself noticable, and so cannot get the information they need.

As a result, Holmes goes to the town in disguise, and is gone for many days.

Eventually he coems back to Baker Street, having asked some questions and pieced together some of the puzzle--

This music teacher had a rich acquaintance in Africa or India (can't remember which) and said acquaintance has just died off, meaning she should be getting a good inheritance soon, which she can put towards marrying a man she loves. Unfortunately, as Holems finds out, there are men who worked with the man in Africa/India who also want that money, and aren't keen on her getting it, and so decide to try and force her out any wy they can, being increasingly hostile towards her and, if necessary, resolving to kill her.

There are two main villains--a typical gentleman-bad-guy, and a priest (of all people.)

But NEITHER are the stalking cyclist.

Holmes hears some more from the man who's said this, and has a conclusion reached, as all come to a head--

The man with this information was in cahoots with the other two, but balked when he came to fall in love with the music teacher, and now can't bear to go through with it, and so has been following her on her way to work every morning--as the stalking, Solitary Cyclist--in order to be sure the other two don't bop her off on the way there in the isolated woods.

Well, being outed doesn't thrill the other two, and one gets violent, and in a struggle for the gun, the Solitary Cyclist shoots and kills the gentleman-bad-guy who was intent on hurting the music teacher.

So all is wrapped up, and Watson gives a quick epilogue, stating that the shot gentleman survived and is now serving 10 years for attempted murder of the young music teacher, and his priest cohort 7 years, whereas the Solitary Cyclist, having done wrong but ahving tried to make up for it, and having shot the gentleman-bad-pguy but in self-defense, faces a fate unknown to Watson, but he "hints" that, perhaps, the good was taken with the bad, and a few months in prison should be enough to satisfy justice, as the music teacher weds and lives happily ever after, and Holmes smokes a pipe.

The End. :)

That's an average Holmes story--there are FAR FAR FAR better, deeper, and--as the better ones usually are--darker Holmes stories.

So that's a story.

As a CHARACTER...

Holmes is like his stories--you think he's justn a simple cliche at first, given what you think about him after more than a hundred years of popular culture surrounding him, but he's a very deep, very conflicted person indeed.

He knows so much, and yet so little...

He can tell you almost anything you need to know if it's science or biology or criminology or person-to-person reading (before psychology) and so on...and he can tell WHY people fall in love and why they act as they do and anticipate all that...

But he can never act on that himself, he's a very asexual person.

He only has ONE love interest in then 60 stories/novels (so there's one area Bond has the edge) and it's that one time he DOESN'T solve the case, at least not right away...

This woman, Irene Adler, BEATS HOLMES in solving the case, and she's on the other side of this international incident--"A Scandal In Bohemia"--and so Holmes, ever the Platonist, and caring far more about the mind and abilities than looks, falls for her (as much as Holmes can fall for anyone) because of that and her personality...

But she's on the other side of this, and engaged, so it never comes to fruition.

And then there's Holmes' cocaine habit, which he has because he always needs stimulation; many today speculate him to have been a manic depressive, and so he's ALWAYS engaged with a project to try and keep from sinking into a pit of depression...whether it's a case or somking or playing his violin or playing around with his chemistry set, Holmes HAS to do something or smoke something...

Or, for him, there's just no point to life.

(It's another reason I like hiom--even when his chemistry experiments blow up in his face--like they do in one episode of the Brett series--he HAS to do it, or he'll be depressed...

I may post loong, rambling, points, but I HAVE to try writing--I just need to, like Holmes and his chemistry and violin and cases, if I didn't have reading and writing and the like, I just don't know what I'd do with myself...I don't know if we're all like that, or just some people...but it's a reason I like Holmes so much--

He's coldly logical...and yet you know he's as passionate as can be about his work, he HAS to be.) ;)

Well, I haven't even read this entire thread but I think I'll go somewhat on the original topic and put in my choice castings. I think that it would be interesting to cast Sean Connery as Doctor Who and David Tennant as James Bond.

You can't really compare Daniel Craig with any other Bond. It isn't 1964 anymore or even 1999. Action movies have to have a dark twist and a brutish lead role to be successful. I think Roger Moore had real talent as Bond, but let's be honest. His films were during the 70s and 80s. Everything from that time period basically sucked. He was simply the victim of 70s and 80s film scripts. Sean Connery and his Bond films were absolutely legendary. Pierce Brosnan did a pretty good job. Unlike Roger Moore, he had the benefit of good scripts. His films definitely had the most intense action. TND had a great conclusion (the shootout on the stealth boat was awesome). Goldeneye had a great storyline and plenty of action as well. TWINE was not that good, and DAD was about on par with Goldeneye, boosted partly by Halle Berry in her prime (although her role was fairly predictable and a little tacky). Daniel Craig has done a fairly good job so far. He has helped update the character.

1. Sean Connery
2 (tie) Pierce Brosnan
2 (tie) Daniel Craig
4. Roger Moore
5. George Lazenby
6. Timothy Dalton