RSS Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Roll up, roll up! Come and see the incredible George Lazenby in his one and only starring performance as James Bond! And if the idea of listening to a show about On Her Majesty's Secret Service doesn't strike ya, we have our double act of freaks: Adham Fisher and Ian Wilson! Which host mocks the other about their understanding of anatomy? Which host sees lesbianism in every female? And what's the verdict on the new Bond theme? Step right up and find out! [ 2:49:01 || 77.3 MB ] The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/podcasts/foryourear...arsonly_006.mp3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Episode #1 was too green, #2 was recorded when wired & edited badly, #3 was getting there, #4 had far too many "basically"s and #5 sounded awful despite the style being down. I am finally content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Recording and editing a podcast takes a while to get used to, so I'm glad to hear that you've hit your stride, Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Best one yet, I'm glad you both share my fondness for the black sheep of the Bond films. My only real issue with portions of it is that the action is often disjointed when it doesn't need to be, filled with speeded up films and dodgy backgrounds. I'll send a more detailed response via email, including some theories and info about why bond isn't breaking the 4th wall and why Bond and Blofeld don't recognize each other. Also my thoughts on why the "guts" pun is one of the worst and least appropriate in the entire series. Glad you appreciated my last message, feel free to drop down to Bristol for a drink anytime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistah J Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Hey Ian, thanks to you roasting James and Mike everytime they've finished a series on WFP, you've got a new fan and an old James Bond freak. Keep it shaken, not stirred! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 By all means! Thanks for the praise and consider it my honour to "roast" my supreme overlord on high and the angriest man in the world on a series-by-series basis! See, Dubs isn't the only one who has other names for the staff here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Come now, Ian. You know I'm "the most jaded man in the world". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Yeah, James is jaded. Angry is my gimmick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Come now, Ian. You know I'm "the most jaded man in the world". Duly noted! So.....Lazenby, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistah J Posted November 3, 2008 Report Share Posted November 3, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Out of interest, do you mean to say that Bond films of late (say, from the 90s onwards) have sucked and you don't watch the Craig films as a result, or that you hated Casino Royale so much that you won't see the current film? Am not calling you right or wrong - just curious to see what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistah J Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Out of interest, do you mean to say that Bond films of late (say, from the 90s onwards) have sucked and you don't watch the Craig films as a result, or that you hated Casino Royale so much that you won't see the current film? Am not calling you right or wrong - just curious to see what you mean. I mean that the Craig film, Casino Royale was badly done from bringing a blonde Bond in to having Judi (y?) Dench still playing M. If they were going to go back to the beginning M should be a man...Brosnan was the best Bond IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 But this wasn't a prequel to the other films. It's a reboot in its own continuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted November 5, 2008 Report Share Posted November 5, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Out of interest, do you mean to say that Bond films of late (say, from the 90s onwards) have sucked and you don't watch the Craig films as a result, or that you hated Casino Royale so much that you won't see the current film? Am not calling you right or wrong - just curious to see what you mean. I mean that the Craig film, Casino Royale was badly done from bringing a blonde Bond in to having Judi (y?) Dench still playing M. If they were going to go back to the beginning M should be a man...Brosnan was the best Bond IMHO. The casting of Judi Dench as M in a new Bond continuity is admittedly somewhat counter-productive to casual Bond fans, but in that the film series is notoriously wretched at sticking to much of a continuity, I can pretty much accept it. The points Adham & I made in this episode about Blofeld not recognising Bond is pretty much a perfect example of this. In any case, I certainly disagree that M has to be a man if the film is focusing on the beginnings of the character Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistah J Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Out of interest, do you mean to say that Bond films of late (say, from the 90s onwards) have sucked and you don't watch the Craig films as a result, or that you hated Casino Royale so much that you won't see the current film? Am not calling you right or wrong - just curious to see what you mean. I mean that the Craig film, Casino Royale was badly done from bringing a blonde Bond in to having Judi (y?) Dench still playing M. If they were going to go back to the beginning M should be a man...Brosnan was the best Bond IMHO. The casting of Judi Dench as M in a new Bond continuity is admittedly somewhat counter-productive to casual Bond fans, but in that the film series is notoriously wretched at sticking to much of a continuity, I can pretty much accept it. The points Adham & I made in this episode about Blofeld not recognising Bond is pretty much a perfect example of this. In any case, I certainly disagree that M has to be a man if the film is focusing on the beginnings of the character It'd make more sense if they were to do it like Doctor Who, but since they can't they burn a lot of Bond Fans by not explaining why they decided to go back to the beginning and just think that we are going to say, "oh another Bond film and he's blonde, and we don't know why we're back in the cold war, okay! Humper, dumper, do..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted November 6, 2008 Report Share Posted November 6, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Out of interest, do you mean to say that Bond films of late (say, from the 90s onwards) have sucked and you don't watch the Craig films as a result, or that you hated Casino Royale so much that you won't see the current film? Am not calling you right or wrong - just curious to see what you mean. I mean that the Craig film, Casino Royale was badly done from bringing a blonde Bond in to having Judi (y?) Dench still playing M. If they were going to go back to the beginning M should be a man...Brosnan was the best Bond IMHO. The casting of Judi Dench as M in a new Bond continuity is admittedly somewhat counter-productive to casual Bond fans, but in that the film series is notoriously wretched at sticking to much of a continuity, I can pretty much accept it. The points Adham & I made in this episode about Blofeld not recognising Bond is pretty much a perfect example of this. In any case, I certainly disagree that M has to be a man if the film is focusing on the beginnings of the character It'd make more sense if they were to do it like Doctor Who, but since they can't they burn a lot of Bond Fans by not explaining why they decided to go back to the beginning and just think that we are going to say, "oh another Bond film and he's blonde, and we don't know why we're back in the cold war, okay! Humper, dumper, do..." If you say beforehand "this going back to Bond's origins", then I think Bond fans and critics alike will get it - those that don't simply have to follow the plot within the film. Because Bond isn't sci-fi (unless you count Q branch, and Moonraker), you can't simply regenerate the lead actor - you have to re-invent them instead. The Craig iteration of Bond is not just another reinvention of the character but a reboot as well, almost exactly like Christian Bale as Batman. Now if you don't like Craig because he's not Brosnan, or because he's blonde, or because his take on Bond is VERY different to the previous films, then that's your opinion and I won't deride you for it. But the current Bond producers certainly deserve a lot more credit than they're being given because they've pretty much rescued the franchise from self-parody - which is EXACTLY what Die Another Day felt like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistah J Posted November 7, 2008 Report Share Posted November 7, 2008 Personally, I liked Lazenby's Bond and wished he had done more. He should have been next in the Bond series before Moore, but that's MHO. Anyway, I have stopped watching any Bond films since Craig took over. Those movies suck. Out of interest, do you mean to say that Bond films of late (say, from the 90s onwards) have sucked and you don't watch the Craig films as a result, or that you hated Casino Royale so much that you won't see the current film? Am not calling you right or wrong - just curious to see what you mean. I mean that the Craig film, Casino Royale was badly done from bringing a blonde Bond in to having Judi (y?) Dench still playing M. If they were going to go back to the beginning M should be a man...Brosnan was the best Bond IMHO. The casting of Judi Dench as M in a new Bond continuity is admittedly somewhat counter-productive to casual Bond fans, but in that the film series is notoriously wretched at sticking to much of a continuity, I can pretty much accept it. The points Adham & I made in this episode about Blofeld not recognising Bond is pretty much a perfect example of this. In any case, I certainly disagree that M has to be a man if the film is focusing on the beginnings of the character It'd make more sense if they were to do it like Doctor Who, but since they can't they burn a lot of Bond Fans by not explaining why they decided to go back to the beginning and just think that we are going to say, "oh another Bond film and he's blonde, and we don't know why we're back in the cold war, okay! Humper, dumper, do..." If you say beforehand "this going back to Bond's origins", then I think Bond fans and critics alike will get it - those that don't simply have to follow the plot within the film. Because Bond isn't sci-fi (unless you count Q branch, and Moonraker), you can't simply regenerate the lead actor - you have to re-invent them instead. The Craig iteration of Bond is not just another reinvention of the character but a reboot as well, almost exactly like Christian Bale as Batman. Now if you don't like Craig because he's not Brosnan, or because he's blonde, or because his take on Bond is VERY different to the previous films, then that's your opinion and I won't deride you for it. But the current Bond producers certainly deserve a lot more credit than they're being given because they've pretty much rescued the franchise from self-parody - which is EXACTLY what Die Another Day felt like. Okay I will admit Die Another Day was scaping the bottom of the barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 I finally just watched the film (admittedly a few years late). And I have to admit that it was perhaps my 2nd favorite Bond film, behind From Russia With Love. I think what is holding me back is: a) the GIGANTIC plot hole of Blowfeld not recognizing Bond and b) the fast cut action scenes. I really don't like that style of film, and it really takes me out of the film. I would have bought the plastic surgery excuse, but Bond goes around telling everyone he is Bond anyways, so a new face wouldn't have mattered for long. Lazenby was a lot better as Bond than I would have thought, given that he only did the one film. I do think his Bond would be more fondly remembered if he had done a few more films. Remember, this was his first crack at it, so I think he would have gotten even better. Lastly, the kill with then snow trencher was rather graphic for these early Bond films and a genuine 'holy shit' moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.