Morty inquired: What do ANY of those things have to do with the actor?
---
Well, let's go through them one at a time. I'll do my best to help you, as always. The Tarzan yelp accompanied a scene with Roger Moore -- an actor. The juvenile one-liners and sight gags? Roger Moore, an actor. Goofy Sherrif? Clifton James, an actor. Jaws flapping his wings? Richard Kiel, an actor. etc etc.
DAF had jokes, but didn't begin to approach the juvenile sapstick humor that would characterize the Moore comedies.
Connery is overrated
Started by
Dr.Carl Mortner
, Jul 28 2003 06:31 PM
98 replies to this topic
#92
Dr.Carl Mortner
-
- Crew
-
- 281 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 22 August 2003 - 02:27 AM
Come on Blox -- you're throwing out a bunch of red herrings. From your previosu post, the "actor" you were referring to was obviously Roger Moore, as if all the goofy carryings-on that came courtesy of charlatans such as Harry Salzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz were HIS fault. How does Jaws flapping his arms or the stereotyped goofy Southern sheriff have anything to do with Roger Moore.
THREE MEN were responsible for the sins of the early '70s Bond comedies, and they are the unholy trinity of Harry, Guy and Tom (sounds like the three stooges or something). They are not missed.
THREE MEN were responsible for the sins of the early '70s Bond comedies, and they are the unholy trinity of Harry, Guy and Tom (sounds like the three stooges or something). They are not missed.
#93
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 22 August 2003 - 03:10 PM
Morty: ...charlatans such as Harry Salzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz
....Its one thing to dislike what people do. Its another to impugn their reputations in a public venue. Sean Connery, Harry Saltzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz -- each enormously talented industry professionals. Your posts cross the line and are offensive. I will not dignify them further.
Blox
....Its one thing to dislike what people do. Its another to impugn their reputations in a public venue. Sean Connery, Harry Saltzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz -- each enormously talented industry professionals. Your posts cross the line and are offensive. I will not dignify them further.
Blox
#94
Dr.Carl Mortner
-
- Crew
-
- 281 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 22 August 2003 - 05:00 PM
How did I cross any line? I'm simply laying the blame where it's due. Those three men (not Connery, although you seem to suggest that actors have something to do with a movie's story and production) WERE the ones responsible for the early '70s Bond films, whether one likes their style or not.
#95
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 23 August 2003 - 12:44 AM
Mortner wrote: "...courtesy of charlatans such as Harry Salzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz..."
Mortner wrote: "How did I cross any line?"
----
Main Entry: char
Mortner wrote: "How did I cross any line?"
----
Main Entry: char
#96
Dr.Carl Mortner
-
- Crew
-
- 281 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 23 August 2003 - 04:30 AM
OK, maybe that was out of line. My apologies. It just bothers me when people blame the decisions of producers and directors on actors.
Guy Hamilton had this idea of Bond movies being "romps" and he was slow to embrace a more serious, Terence Young approach to the series. Anybody involved could have ended the silliness that characterized the Bond films of the '70s at any time, but no one did. Finally, John Glen came in and ended the madness with FYEO, in the meantime coaxing a phenomenal performance out of Roger Moore. Perhaps Moore was reluctant to portray a darker, more serious 007, but the fact remains that the results are up there on the screen and he did a fantastic job.
Roger was a man of great internal conflict where it came to Bond. He's a pacifist at heart, yet he played a character whose very reason-to-be was based on violence.
On the making-of-FYEO documentary on the DVD, there's a telling shot of Moore just as he had kicked Locque's car off the cliff. He's staring down the cliff, looking regretful about something. I think it was that moment that he realized that he could not declaw a character whose whole job description was killing people. I also think it was at that time that Moore decided to stop playing Roger Moore and start acting -- separating his own personality from the Bond character.
Guy Hamilton had this idea of Bond movies being "romps" and he was slow to embrace a more serious, Terence Young approach to the series. Anybody involved could have ended the silliness that characterized the Bond films of the '70s at any time, but no one did. Finally, John Glen came in and ended the madness with FYEO, in the meantime coaxing a phenomenal performance out of Roger Moore. Perhaps Moore was reluctant to portray a darker, more serious 007, but the fact remains that the results are up there on the screen and he did a fantastic job.
Roger was a man of great internal conflict where it came to Bond. He's a pacifist at heart, yet he played a character whose very reason-to-be was based on violence.
On the making-of-FYEO documentary on the DVD, there's a telling shot of Moore just as he had kicked Locque's car off the cliff. He's staring down the cliff, looking regretful about something. I think it was that moment that he realized that he could not declaw a character whose whole job description was killing people. I also think it was at that time that Moore decided to stop playing Roger Moore and start acting -- separating his own personality from the Bond character.
#97
Blox
-
- Crew
-
- 279 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 24 August 2003 - 12:50 AM
Morty: OK, maybe that was out of line. My apologies.
...Accepted with thanks.
It just bothers me when people blame the decisions of producers and directors on actors.
...You have to be more realistic here. Moore and Connery contributed a lot to the characters we see onscreen. It's a team effort, but one can't shield the actor from his shortcommings and only point the finger at the production team. Here's an example from the BondAge Terence Young interview:
http://members.aol.c...le/ty_part1.htm
"Immediately after that, Sean sits down and they have dinner. I kept saying,
...Accepted with thanks.
It just bothers me when people blame the decisions of producers and directors on actors.
...You have to be more realistic here. Moore and Connery contributed a lot to the characters we see onscreen. It's a team effort, but one can't shield the actor from his shortcommings and only point the finger at the production team. Here's an example from the BondAge Terence Young interview:
http://members.aol.c...le/ty_part1.htm
"Immediately after that, Sean sits down and they have dinner. I kept saying,
#98
Pussfeller
-
- Veterans
-
- 4089 posts
Commander
- Location:Washington, D.C.
Posted 06 September 2003 - 05:44 AM
The more I hear, the more I think everyone is overrated!
As I see it, the first actor to play a role will always be the standard, not necessarily the best. Some people insist that the standard is the best at everything.
Connery is overrated in some ways, and in other ways he is underrated. I've always felt that way, and I am a big Connery fan.
As I see it, the first actor to play a role will always be the standard, not necessarily the best. Some people insist that the standard is the best at everything.
Connery is overrated in some ways, and in other ways he is underrated. I've always felt that way, and I am a big Connery fan.
#99
Pussfeller
-
- Veterans
-
- 4089 posts
Commander
- Location:Washington, D.C.
Posted 06 September 2003 - 06:22 AM
Posted by Dr. Carl Mortner: "OK, maybe that was out of line. My apologies. It just bothers me when people blame the decisions of producers and directors on actors."
Don't be so apologetic, Dr. Carl. Sometimes hyperbole is necessary. On many occasions while watching a Moore-era film, coming to a particularly asinine situation (such as the double-taking pigeon or the arms flapping) I have wanted to call the producers worse names than "charlatan."
In any event, this forum is not to be taken as a legally-binding document, and I doubt that the opinions expressed here will tarnish the otherwise golden reputations of Harry Salzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz.
Yes, I suppose we should all show some respect towards the illustrious producers. But what about showing respect for the memory of Ian Fleming and the characters he created? It's perfectly acceptable to twist and bastardize a writer's work to make it more easily digestible to the general public, in the process pocketing scads of cash. But it's somehow taboo to call into question a filmmaker's virtues. Perhaps these men are not charlatans, but they are in no way "owed" by fans of Fleming's Bond. They have, if anything, done a great disservice to those (perhaps few) individuals who had hoped to see a genuine portrayal of the original characters and their stories, in a professional style and not in some horrific 70's campy-vision.
The actors were not blameless, but they were not the main perpetrators of Bond silliness. Roger Moore, to his eternal credit, actually took advantage of the situation to achieve a subtler, cleverer Bond. In a way, he was the greatest Bond ironist, the unsung champion of Fleming's wishes. He managed to thrive in the muck and mire, suffering some of the most ridiculous material in Bond history, yet not (as Connery) growing cranky or disgusted or demanding a great deal more control. Perhaps he knew that he could simultaneously appeal to the hoi polloi and the small, devoted followers of Fleming's novels. Moore gave a performance that was at once charming, suave, campy, ridiculous, and at times surprisingly serious and even cruel (as in the "Where's Fekkish" scene). And while this was all very subtle and rare, invisible to the cruder taste of the neophyte and craze-follower, it was nevertheless present for the long-suffering purist.
Sorry to drone on and on, but I think it is wrong to blame the actors who did a damn good job of working with what they were given. I am forced to conclude, without regrets or bad conscience, that the producers were to blame for the feel-good romps of the seventies and the boring, albeit less silly romps of the eighties.
Don't be so apologetic, Dr. Carl. Sometimes hyperbole is necessary. On many occasions while watching a Moore-era film, coming to a particularly asinine situation (such as the double-taking pigeon or the arms flapping) I have wanted to call the producers worse names than "charlatan."
In any event, this forum is not to be taken as a legally-binding document, and I doubt that the opinions expressed here will tarnish the otherwise golden reputations of Harry Salzman, Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz.
Yes, I suppose we should all show some respect towards the illustrious producers. But what about showing respect for the memory of Ian Fleming and the characters he created? It's perfectly acceptable to twist and bastardize a writer's work to make it more easily digestible to the general public, in the process pocketing scads of cash. But it's somehow taboo to call into question a filmmaker's virtues. Perhaps these men are not charlatans, but they are in no way "owed" by fans of Fleming's Bond. They have, if anything, done a great disservice to those (perhaps few) individuals who had hoped to see a genuine portrayal of the original characters and their stories, in a professional style and not in some horrific 70's campy-vision.
The actors were not blameless, but they were not the main perpetrators of Bond silliness. Roger Moore, to his eternal credit, actually took advantage of the situation to achieve a subtler, cleverer Bond. In a way, he was the greatest Bond ironist, the unsung champion of Fleming's wishes. He managed to thrive in the muck and mire, suffering some of the most ridiculous material in Bond history, yet not (as Connery) growing cranky or disgusted or demanding a great deal more control. Perhaps he knew that he could simultaneously appeal to the hoi polloi and the small, devoted followers of Fleming's novels. Moore gave a performance that was at once charming, suave, campy, ridiculous, and at times surprisingly serious and even cruel (as in the "Where's Fekkish" scene). And while this was all very subtle and rare, invisible to the cruder taste of the neophyte and craze-follower, it was nevertheless present for the long-suffering purist.
Sorry to drone on and on, but I think it is wrong to blame the actors who did a damn good job of working with what they were given. I am forced to conclude, without regrets or bad conscience, that the producers were to blame for the feel-good romps of the seventies and the boring, albeit less silly romps of the eighties.