42 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

I think there should be a maximum of 4 films for each actor.  There has only been one really good Bond film made with an actor who has been in the role for more than 4 films (FYEO).  I'm not sure if the actor gets bored in the role or if the production team starts to lean too much on the lead actor's presence and they get lazy, but for some reason the act gets stale.

I think you must say "I think". I think YOLT was a great film, so was FYEO and OP. DAF and AVTAK are not so good, IMO but they have their moments, also they got their supporters.
Also dont forget Connerys 6th beat Lazenbys 1st and in a way rescued the series. I say OHMSS was a better film but the audiance prefered the "well known".
I dont say that chosee anyone and give him 10 movies. No I am saying let a sucessful Bond make atleast 5 movies. If Owen or Jackman are avaible for 5 than I say ok.
What we need is another Connery or Moore who has to star atleast in 5 movies. Brosnan can be one IF he makes another or even two. The more they play the more they be Bond. The more they star in Bond films the more they are related with being Bond.

[Turn]

Easier said than done, YOLT. Contracts are a trickier business now than when Connery signed up for his tenure, or even when Moore did. The agents create loopholes and EON probably has a few clauses of its own - Brosnan is a perfect case of the latter.

[Stephenson]

I totally agree tdalton. 3 films for each actor will kill the series IMO.
And Stephenson I am not supporting a failed actor unsucessful actor. What I say is choose the right man and dont change it for atleast 5 films. Why say goodbye to a sucessful 007 and look for a new one and take risk. Thats not a clever move I think.
I cant really judge an actor just in 10mins. Sure its important but its not enough. He has to prove many things being Bond is not that easy in my book. And if he really is Bond than why let him go after 3 films?

Not trying to suggest that you were supporting "a failed actor" YOLT; just the opposite I think Like all of us you no doubt want to see Eon get the best man for the role.

But again, I must disagree with you. Certainly the actor they choose will grow more into the role with each film, that has been true of them all. But whoever the actor is, his first film will be his most important. I think we can all agree that this man has to establish himself as Bond right at the start, or the audience isn't going to come back for film two. Suggesting that the mass of today's audience cares about the Bond franchise enough to look past the film that is front of their face is a little unrealistic. You may want an actor that will deliver 5 good films, but the general audience only wants an actor that can deliver one: the one they're watching.

The Laznby/Connery switch was an odd situation: From everything I've heard, Eon was more than prepared to stay with Lazenby, it was he who decided to leave. Obviously, this left Eon in a panic: I assume they felt very uncomfortable about throwing another new Bond at the audience after only one movie. So they thought the best thing for the franchise was to bring back an established Bond to "stabilize" things. Regardless, this is not the situaion they face now.

I sincerely doubt that Eon is going to be able to attract an actor of any calibre (known or unknown) if they insist he sign on for five films. Moore was obviously the exception, but really, how many good roles were there for a 50 something British actor who had been typecast as an action hero? He knew which side his bread was buttered, and went as long as he could (although not without moments of hesitation). In the end, I don't believe this strategy was particularly good for the franchise. If they try an insist on five films in today's industry, no actor worth having is going to even look at it.

I'm going to stick with three films per actor, four if he is really good as long as he's not starting to get "bored with the part". Two or three years between films (however long it takes to get it right) and 4 years between actors. Keep things fresh, keep the audience hungry, and focus on the film at hand without worrying about any "legacy".

Honestly, I would be happy if after all this wait Eon and co. are able to turn out ONE good movie with a good actor

[Stephenson]

Sorry, double post

Edited by Stephenson, 12 June 2005 - 03:52 AM.

[YOLT]

I totally agree tdalton. 3 films for each actor will kill the series IMO.
And Stephenson I am not supporting a failed actor unsucessful actor. What I say is choose the right man and dont change it for atleast 5 films. Why say goodbye to a sucessful 007 and look for a new one and take risk. Thats not a clever move I think.
I cant really judge an actor just in 10mins. Sure its important but its not enough. He has to prove many things being Bond is not that easy in my book. And if he really is Bond than why let him go after 3 films?

Not trying to suggest that you were supporting "a failed actor" YOLT; just the opposite I think Like all of us you no doubt want to see Eon get the best man for the role.

But again, I must disagree with you. Certainly the actor they choose will grow more into the role with each film, that has been true of them all. But whoever the actor is, his first film will be his most important. I think we can all agree that this man has to establish himself as Bond right at the start, or the audience isn't going to come back for film two. Suggesting that the mass of today's audience cares about the Bond franchise enough to look past the film that is front of their face is a little unrealistic. You may want an actor that will deliver 5 good films, but the general audience only wants an actor that can deliver one: the one they're watching.

The Laznby/Connery switch was an odd situation: From everything I've heard, Eon was more than prepared to stay with Lazenby, it was he who decided to leave. Obviously, this left Eon in a panic: I assume they felt very uncomfortable about throwing another new Bond at the audience after only one movie. So they thought the best thing for the franchise was to bring back an established Bond to "stabilize" things. Regardless, this is not the situaion they face now.

I sincerely doubt that Eon is going to be able to attract an actor of any calibre (known or unknown) if they insist he sign on for five films. Moore was obviously the exception, but really, how many good roles were there for a 50 something British actor who had been typecast as an action hero? He knew which side his bread was buttered, and went as long as he could (although not without moments of hesitation). In the end, I don't believe this strategy was particularly good for the franchise. If they try an insist on five films in today's industry, no actor worth having is going to even look at it.

I'm going to stick with three films per actor, four if he is really good as long as he's not starting to get "bored with the part". Two or three years between films (however long it takes to get it right) and 4 years between actors. Keep things fresh, keep the audience hungry, and focus on the film at hand without worrying about any "legacy".

Honestly, I would be happy if after all this wait Eon and co. are able to turn out ONE good movie with a good actor

Of course the first film is very crucial. But you know what is said: Connery hit the top with GF and Moore with TSWLM. We can agree or disagree but the more they started in the 007 films the more the audiance wanted to see them and see them as 007. The number of films may change for different actors or situations but 3 films for each actor in the Bond series is very low. Now who cares Batman they change the leading role in every film and I dont. Also who cares XXX Vin Diesel gone and a new guy came but I dont. Also Bond is totally different from these "films". There is a history there is a long serie.
Also if an actor will have just 3 shots he will normally want to mark his name in a different way. We couldnt really watch just a single mission in the Brosnan era, they were somehow personal. Connery and Moore are the only 007s that hadnt had any personal films just missions. And thats what I want, a long film period with only one 007 and his "unpersonal" missions.

[Stephenson]

Fair play, YOLT. If that's what you want, I hope you're happy with what you get

As you mentioned, many think that Connery hit his stride with with GF (film #3), Moore with TSWLM (film #3), and (although some dislike the film) many feel Brosnan's best performance was TWINE (#3). I'm sure this was your point. But, with the exception of Thunderball (and maybe FYEO), what came after tended to be a bit of a disappointment (to me at least). It seems as if the actors who have had the chance to go for a longer run start getting stale at around film four and then it's downhill from there. Again, just IMO.

Both Moore and Brosnan were older actors when they took the role, and already had a pretty clear idea of where their career trajectory was taking them. They needed Bond to revitalize their careers, knew that their future success lay with that role to one extent or another. They didn't need to be "talked into" a four or five film deal, they were asking for it! A good quality younger actor (as I want: 33-35) still has a good chunk of his career ahead of him and will be very hesitant to sign something other than a 3 film or less deal IMO.

Totally agree with you about the nature of the missions . Although, if you can judge by the source material (who knows?) CR seems to be similiar in tone to TWINE. More personal missions, I'm afraid ....

[YOLT]

Fair play, YOLT. If that's what you want, I hope you're happy with what you get

As you mentioned, many think that Connery hit his stride with with GF (film #3), Moore with TSWLM (film #3), and (although some dislike the film) many feel Brosnan's best performance was TWINE (#3). I'm sure this was your point. But, with the exception of Thunderball (and maybe FYEO), what came after tended to be a bit of a disappointment (to me at least). It seems as if the actors who have had the chance to go for a longer run start getting stale at around film four and then it's downhill from there. Again, just IMO.

Both Moore and Brosnan were older actors when they took the role, and already had a pretty clear idea of where their career trajectory was taking them. They needed Bond to revitalize their careers, knew that their future success lay with that role to one extent or another. They didn't need to be "talked into" a four or five film deal, they were asking for it! A good quality younger actor (as I want: 33-35) still has a good chunk of his career ahead of him and will be very hesitant to sign something other than a 3 film or less deal IMO.

Totally agree with you about the nature of the missions . Although, if you can judge by the source material (who knows?) CR seems to be similiar in tone to TWINE. More personal missions, I'm afraid ....

Well we will see whats going to happen. I hope this way or that the series win the fans win. TWINE was a good movie I think, but sometimes there was too much melodram.

[Stephenson]

"Melodrama", excellent word!

This is what I was saying before: Bond needs more obstacles that challenge him mentally and physically, like in the old days. Enough of having Bond's most vulnerable spot be his heart. We saw it once, in a one-off, with OHMSS, and despite their best efforts, the writers and producers are not going to come up with anything more tragic or moving than the end of that film. Beyond that, IMO Bond showed exactly the right amount of emotion when he faced the death of Jill in GF (props to Brosnan: his "I never miss" line was pretty cool, just not cool enough to justify that plot).

I think that's why I enjoy the first half of DAD so much: it is all about Bond using his wits and facing physical challenges: torture, the mystery of who betrayed him, having to function on his own, his investigating in Cuba, the sword fight with Graves. He doesn't get all reflective and self-pitying when M shuts him down, he gets pissed off and escapes. Aside from the jedi mindtrick, it was great stuff. Too bad they couldn't have kept that tone for the rest of it. Instead the pendulum swings completely the other way. It's almost like the had heard so many criticisms about "the serious, emotional Bond" of TWINE that they decided to remove all humanity from the last half of DAD. "That'll show'em!!"

[Bondesque]

I believe that EON is making a mistake in that they attempt to "flesh" out Bonds character but rather then showing things that give us a glimpse inside the man they MISTINTERPRET that and emphasize his heart and sensitivity.

I would love to see more of what makes Bond tick (his flat perhaps, more golf outings, friends, etc) but Brosnan (bless him) showed too much pain and heartache and not enough bitterness against the women that wronged him.

Though it is not PC, Bond has a love/hate relationship with the female sex. He loves seducing them, but it isn't because he has a "heart on" for them; it is because he can use them in some way, and they feel good. The exception to this was Tracy, who got inside his emotional armour so to speak. Bond hates women because they have betrayed him and in some way or another, died on him (including Tracy).

If CR is his first mission and Vesper the person who originally wronged him, thus shaping his view on the fairer sex; then let EON make damned sure that the actor playing BOnd has a very strong screen presence and that they show his anger and bitterness emerge and shape him.

CR has GREAT potential but that potential depends on A. The writing B. Direction and C. Who plays Bond.

I respected and enjoyed what Pierce brought to the the role but he doesn't have the dramatic weight to pull off CR.

I wonder ...who does...?

[tdalton]

What I was saying was that, once they find their man, EON needs to stick with him in the role for a while. By recasting after every 3 films or so, then it almost turns the casting of Bond into the casting of Batman, where you get the new flavor of the month put into the role rather than the right person in the role. If they recast so soon each time out, then it turns the search for a new Bond into a bigger spectacle than the films themselves, which would ultimately tank the series. You don't want the media to start talking about the next Bond search going into an actor's third film, when that actor should be ultimately hitting his stride as Bond (as the others, save Dalton and Lazenby, have done). That kind of talk would overshadow the film and the actor, as he would be being pushed out the door before he was even done in the role. That's what would happen if they decide to recast it every three films or so.

However, if they pick the wrong guy (which they have yet to do), and he fails in his first film, then you go ahead and recast the role. But, once the right guy is found, EON needs to keep him in the role for as long as possible.

[Lucia00]

What I was saying was that, once they find their man, EON needs to stick with him in the role for a while. By recasting after every 3 films or so, then it almost turns the casting of Bond into the casting of Batman, where you get the new flavor of the month put into the role rather than the right person in the role. If they recast so soon each time out, then it turns the search for a new Bond into a bigger spectacle than the films themselves, which would ultimately tank the series. You don't want the media to start talking about the next Bond search going into an actor's third film, when that actor should be ultimately hitting his stride as Bond (as the others, save Dalton and Lazenby, have done). That kind of talk would overshadow the film and the actor, as he would be being pushed out the door before he was even done in the role. That's what would happen if they decide to recast it every three films or so.

However, if they pick the wrong guy (which they have yet to do), and he fails in his first film, then you go ahead and recast the role. But, once the right guy is found, EON needs to keep him in the role for as long as possible.

You are so right. Great tdalton

[freemo]

I see no reason not to have the same Bond for 4 or 5 films. Let youngsters grow up with "their" Bond the way that alot here did with Moore and Brosnan. Not many seem to like the performances of the lead in, say, Diamonds Are Forever and Octopussy, but I rather enjoy the "old pro's" grace that Connery and Moore possess in those films. Let someone take complete ownership of the role the way that Connery and then Moore were able to.

The series has lasted this long because (apart from the "formula") of it's ability to reinvent itself when nesessary, but that doesn't mean they need a new lead every third film. Personally, I'd rather see the writers, assistant director, production designer, composer (oh, for the love of God, please), etc changed every third film. It's not just the lead actor who can get stale.

[hcmv007]

How about a unknown in the role of Bond? A relative newcomer would be perfect to do say, 3 or 4 movies in a 10 year period of time. Remember all, Sean Connery was a relative unknown actor before Bond.

Edited by hcmv007, 19 June 2005 - 01:37 AM.