42 replies to this topic

[NORK]

I just wondered what everybody's thoughts on this was? Any comments?

[DLibrasnow]

I really hope so. I know he was in The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill but his part was almost a cameo in those movies. The last time he actually appeared somewhat substantially was in Never Say Never Again.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

given a good size part in the film i would say by all means have him in it but if they cant do it then just forget it

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
given a good size part in the film i would say by all means have him in it but if they cant do it then just forget it

We've had Felix substitutes in the last few movies from Jack Wade to Jinx....I think part of the problem might be that Felix doesn't have both his legs now...

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I really hope so. I know he was in The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill but his part was almost a cameo in those movies. The last time he actually appeared somewhat substantially was in Never Say Never Again.

Rather more than "almost a cameo" in LICENCE TO KILL, surely? Leiter must have had more screentime in LTK than in any other Bond film - and for once played a vital role in the story.

[Tanger]

I remember shortly before DAD how we were all wishing that Michael Madsen was playing Felix and that Falco was just a code name.

[brendan007]

Bugger Felix, he's never made an impression in the films, so why bother to start now. He's great in the books, but so is a lot of stuff that has never made it to the screen.

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


We've had Felix substitutes in the last few movies from Jack Wade to Jinx....I think part of the problem might be that Felix doesn't have both his legs now...

the ex-indy car champion and former formula one grand prix driver, alex zanardi, lost both his legs in a truly ghastly and horrifying crash in a race in germany only days after the 9-11 disaster.

last weekend he scored points in his first race back in a dtm race in italy.

truth is stranger than fiction.

james bond, M, moneypenny, and Q are timeless characters/designations in the 007 universe. felix leiter, i recon, would be no different.

[DLibrasnow]

Doesn't he work for the DEA now?

[Jaelle]

Snowie, Felix Leiter didn't lose both his legs in LTK. He lost half of *one* of his legs.

In order for Felix to come back, EON would have to do one of two things:

1. Give him a half-prosthetic leg. This would mean *acknowledging* the existence of LTK and Timothy Dalton as James Bond.

2. Ignore the events of LTK and presume he has no physical disability. This would mean an *explicit* erasure of the Timothy Dalton Bond films, at least LTK.

Either choice would bring some...shall we say...*discomfort* to EON, imo.

I know some fans dismiss Leiter as a character in the films and have no problem with his departure from the series. I'm not one of them.

I agree that the films have never treated the character with any integrity or much thought. However I don't agree that Leiter's impact in the films has been *zero*. I think he does have some impact. Leiter's appearances serve to more directly place Bond in the world of espionage professionals, and to show how he functions with a male friend he trusts. I find watching Bond interact with Leiter a fascinating little window into Bond himself---here's a guy Bond treats with respect, as an equal, with trust and confidence. A guy who works in the same world he does, and who's about the same age he is (or supposed to be). I don't care about the impact on casual audiences, who may not remember him, I speak for myself as a viewer.

I like seeing Leiter in DN and the other Connery films, I like seeing him work with Bond in LALD, I even like his brief appearance in TLD (tho I agree with Loomis that that appearance is a poor script choice). I liked seeing him in NSNA - the only problem I found there is that there was *zero* chemistry between Connery and Casey.

I like his appearance in LTK, tho I have mixed feelings about the return of Hedison as Leiter in that film. On the one hand, I would've preferred John Terry to come back. On the other, I understand that the return of a familiar face like Hedison would resonate more with audiences given the plot of LTK--Bond going rogue because of what happens to his best friend.

Imo, Jack Wade has made *zero* impact in the Brosnan films - we've yet to see Brosnan's Bond interacting on an equal, professional basis -- with a subtext of friendship and trust -- with a fellow agent. Yes, there was Wai Linn, but there's the whole sex/romance angle there that entirely changes the tone and nature of their relationship. (And let's not even mention Jinx). And she's a stranger to Bond so there's no back-story between them as there is between Bond and Leiter.

The Brosnan Bonds seem hell-bent on pairing him with a female kick-butt professional agent. In each case, the interaction between them has been wholly forgettable and unconvincing. (I've warmed up to Wai Linn as a character independent of Bond, but her interaction with Bond, and the whole romantic angle, falls completely flat, imo). Well if they're so interested in showing Bond working with a fellow agent, why don't they show him working with a MALE agent (of whatever race or nationality)? I would love to see them bring back the CIA's Felix Leiter but, barring that, another male agent would be quite an interesting thing to see. The closest the Brosnan Bonds have come to that was the opening scene in GE, and I always enjoy watching that sequence.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Jaelle
2. Ignore the events of LTK and presume he has no physical disability.  This would mean an *explicit* erasure of the Timothy Dalton Bond films, at least LTK.

.

that was an excellent post, jaelle.

as for erasure of certain bonds, cubby's implied that twice:

in DAF, the pre-titles, the in-joke in the sir donald scene about conneryBond being on 'holiday', and the absence of even a hint of tracy, indicated that eon didnt acknowledge the existance of lazenbyBond

in GoldenEye, the pre-titles took place in 1986. wasnt that the year brosnan was originally signed as bond until NBC tv in the u.s. spoilt his party. was "nine years earlier" another in-joke...or another implicit erasure of daltonBond? or both?

i mean, why not place the pre-titles in 1987 or 88 or 89 (on the eve of the german re-unification)? and surely they were continuing to build chemical weapons in 90 or 91, non?

and if it took only 14 months for moon to become a knight, surely trevelyan did not need 9 years to have a position as strong as Janus?

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by ray t
that was an excellent post, jaelle.

Gosh, ray, *thank you!*

as for erasure of certain bonds, cubby's implied that twice:
in DAF, the pre-titles, the in-joke in the sir donald scene about conneryBond being on 'holiday', and the absence of even a hint of tracy, indicated that eon didnt acknowledge the existance of lazenbyBond

in GoldenEye, the pre-titles took place in 1986. wasnt that the year brosnan was originally signed as bond until NBC tv in the u.s. spoilt his party. was "nine years earlier" another in-joke...or another implicit erasure of daltonBond? or both? [/B]

In both these cases, I fully admit to some b*itchy and irrational feelings of irritation and even resentment.

In the case of GE, I don't know if this was deliberate on Cubby's part, tho I have no doubt that the folks at MGM/UA loved the idea. If this was a deliberate snub to Dalton's films, it would be rather insulting to Dalton, and Cubby was a loyal friend to him to the bitter end, as are Michael and Barbara. Unless of course it was all meant to be just an in-joke and Dalton didn't mind. Some fans argue that this interpretation of GE's opening sequence is far-fetched and overdrawn. Could be, I don't know.

But I'm not rational on this point - it still annoys the hell out of me, tho as I said, I enjoy it on its own. That sequence still reminds me of the first time I saw GE when it was released - all the PR and commentary about the Dalton films during the whole GE publicity blitz, and it was all unkind. I'm sure the Moore fans felt the same way during the whole Dalton PR blitz during 1986-8.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Jaelle
Snowie, Felix Leiter didn't lose both his legs in LTK.  He lost half of *one* of his legs.

I know....like I said he doesn't have both his legs now......just one (and a half) --

methinks you read my post wrong, but it's all good!!

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
I know....like I said he doesn't have both his legs now......just one (and a half) --
methinks you read my post wrong, but it's all good!!

Oops, sorry about that! *turns on Rosanrosanadana voice* Never mind!

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Jaelle
 
I'm sure the Moore fans felt the same way during the whole Dalton PR blitz during 1986-8.

We did, just like the Brosnan fans will not be happy when he is replaced and his successor gets better publicity/press at Brosnan's expense.

However Roger left when he decided the time was right and he had a good run of seven James Bond movies.

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


We did, just like the Brosnan fans will not be happy when he is replaced and his successor gets better publicity/press at Brosnan's expense.

However Roger left when he decided the time was right and he had a good run of seven James Bond movies.

ya know...it might be that brozzy's successor MAY nt get better pub at his expense:

there'll be no smugness simply by a quite certain fact that in nominal dollars his 5 bonds would have pumped in US$ 2 BILLION in global box office with there being, presumably, not a single 'dog' in the bunch.

no matter how many 'jim's we have who loathe him...no matter how many purists we may have who find TND and DAD too too much...no matter how many TWINE bashers we may have here...there are the multi-millions who enjoyed each and every offering in this era

lest i say, his era, as connery's, may (may) be a very hard act to follow.

on the contrary, they might even be sweating it a bit...just hoping to duplicate the ticket sales and come up with something somewhat "original" (if thats possible)

just an opinion only....

[Genrewriter]

Very nice, ray. I agree totally. Brosnan will be an incredibly tough act to follow. For me, he truly puts the best parts of all the other performers who have come before him into his interpretation of Bond along with his own slant on the character..

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t
.there are the multi-millions who enjoyed each and every offering in this era.

The same could be said for Roger Moore. He was extremely popular during his reign as 007. I remember tv coverage of the royal premiere of The Living Daylights and when the copresenter went out to chat with all the people in the crowd it was interesting that the majority of the public:

a) Had never heard of Timothy Dalton and
Didn't think anyone could replace Roger Moore as James Bond.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by ray t
ya know...it might be that brozzy's successor MAY nt get better pub at his expense:
there'll be no smugness simply by a quite certain fact that in nominal dollars his 5 bonds would have pumped in US$ 2 BILLION in global box office with there being, presumably, not a single 'dog' in the bunch.

Sorry ray, but I couldn't disagree more. By your logic, Moore's era would have had absolutely NO smug or bad PR when it ended. Moore's films have been the most financially successful, they brought riches to the Broccolis beyond their wildest dreams, yet once Moore left and Dalton came in, the critical PR of Moore's films started pouring out.

[ray t]

i loved connery (grew up on his bonds)...i think lazenby did a good job in a great movie...i think moore was fantastic....dalton was terrific....brosnan, well, the least you can say is he's more than delivered the goods...he IS james bond.

i love 'em all equally.

but there have been 'golden' eras of bond: 64-67, 77-83, the brosnan era now.

some may say its ALL been golden except for 1969, 1974 and 1989-93. the trick will be to maintain the juggernaut...it would be asking too much to excede it (commercially)

[ChandlerBing]

I have it on good authority that Felix Leiter will be back and will be played by Ashton Kutcher.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by ray t

no matter how many 'jim's we have who loathe him...no matter how many purists we may have who find TND and DAD too too much...no matter how many TWINE bashers we may have here...there are the multi-millions who enjoyed each and every offering in this era  

Well, personally, if I cared about nothing but commercial success, I'd be a fan of the HARRY POTTER series. I often look at Brosnan's films and wish that the Bond series really had ended with LICENCE TO KILL. The old panache is gone, and the Bonds seem increasingly aimed at the lowest common denominator. What separates, say, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and, say, BAD BOYS? Not all that much. Give me any pre-1995 Bond film over any Brosnan Bond film.

[Genrewriter]

Well, at least the Bond films won't resort to hiring Michael "I have no idea how to make a coherent film so I'll just edit it like a crappy music video" Bay.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Genrewriter

Well, at least the Bond films won't resort to hiring Michael "I have no idea how to make a coherent film so I'll just edit it like a crappy music video" Bay.  

Ahem. Tamahori and Wagner, anyone?

[ray t]

Originally posted by Jaelle


Sorry ray, but I couldn't disagree more.  By your logic, Moore's era would have had absolutely NO smug or bad PR when it ended.  Moore's films have been the most financially successful, they brought riches to the Broccolis beyond their wildest dreams, yet once Moore left and Dalton came in, the critical PR of Moore's films started pouring out.

in all honesty...and i recall it vividly...he ought to have ended it after moonraker...at the latest, FYEO.

the criticism may just have been levelled at the idea of him being so old that it was clear that there was a double in there in every other frame...the difference in age was obscene...you wouldnt have even imagined moore desperatly holding on to a jeep as it hurtled down a mountainside road in gibralter.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t


in all honesty...and i recall it vividly...he ought to have ended it after moonraker...at the latest, FYEO.  

the criticism may just have been levelled at the idea of him being so old that it was clear that there was a double in there in every other frame...the difference in age was obscene...you wouldnt have even imagined moore desperatly holding on to a jeep as it hurtled down a mountainside road in gibralter.

Personally I think Pierce Brosnan was really beginning to show his age in Die Another Day. He certainly looked older in his fourth 007 movie than Roger Moore did (and Sean Connery for that matter).

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Personally I think Pierce Brosnan was really beginning to show his age in Die Another Day.  

Absolutely. And it'll be a sick joke to see him as Bond in 2005, especially as they'll probably pair him again with a "buttkicking babe" young enough to be his daughter.

[ray t]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Personally I think Pierce Brosnan was really beginning to show his age in Die Another Day. He certainly looked older in his fourth 007 movie than Roger Moore did (and Sean Connery for that matter).

and thats why he should have his 5 and end it gracefully

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ray t


and thats why he should have his 5 and end it gracefully

I agree with you on this ray....I think Brosnan will still look okay in the role in 2005 for Bond 21 (although even that may be stretching it as Loomis alludes to) but if he decides to stay on until 2007 or 2008 I think he will become the butt of many "Grandpa Bond" jokes.

[Jaelle]

The criticism of Moore's films started getting heavy with the release of AVTAK and during the Dalton hype was aided by EON. And no, it did not *only* focus on Moore's age. That was part of it but I recall the bulk of the criticism being the direction and tone of the *films* themselves -- what was deemed at the time as too much flippancy and glibness.