111 replies to this topic

[TCK]

Dalton in AVTAK would surely change alot of people's minds of the film: Dalton Vs. Walken.

Dalton's Bond vs Zorin ? Bloodbath assured !

[iBond]

Was Dalton ever a serious contender in '80, '82 or '84?

I'm aware he was considered (surely not approached) in '68.

Dalton in AVTAK would surely change alot of people's minds of the film: Dalton Vs. Walken.

I'm not sure if they would have worked well together.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

What if Roger Moore stayed in for the living daylights?

For one thing, TLD's poster may have looked something like this one(not my photoshop work):

http://images1.snapf...49:2:6325nu0mrj

I have just been thinking about this lately, no idea why. Do you think he could have pulled it off? What kind of movie would it have been? (i really don't want sarcastic answers either.)

I don't think it would've worked nearly as well. Part of TLD's strength is the fact it made such a strong debut film for Dalton's younger and harder-edged Bond. Also, there would have been no chemistry between Moore and Maryam d'Abo(who's 2 or 3 years younger than Lynn Holly Johnson). Moore really should've left after OP but Broccoli was very hesistant to let a Bond actor with a proven box office record go.

[00 Brosnan]

Dalton in AVTAK would surely change alot of people's minds of the film: Dalton Vs. Walken.

Probably, but I think the film itself would have changed immensely. AVTAK gets my vote for worst Bond film. The excess camp, deadpan leading lady, Roger's age...the plot wasn't too bad and it would have worked so much better with Dalton and the more serious tone of his films in my opinion.

I don't think it would've worked nearly as well. Part of TLD's strength is the fact it made such a strong debut film for Dalton's younger and harder-edged Bond. Also, there would have been no chemistry between Moore and Maryam d'Abo(who's 2 or 3 years younger than Lynn Holly Johnson). Moore really should've left after OP but Broccoli was very hesistant to let a Bond actor with a proven box office record go.

I completely agree with this. TLD is one of the best Bond films as it is and it worked well as an introduction to a younger, harder-edged Bond. The chemistry between Dalton and Maryam d'Abo was excellent and big part of the film, it just wouldn't have worked w/ Moore in the same way.

At least with Lynn Holly Johnson in FYEO they were able to kind of make a joke about her age in comparison to Moore's....but she wasn't the leading lady so it worked.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 09 May 2011 - 05:57 AM.

[mttvolcano]

What if Roger Moore stayed in for the living daylights?

For one thing, TLD's poster may have looked something like this one(not my photoshop work):

http://images1.snapf...49:2:6325nu0mrj

It would look more realistic if he had a cane or a walker in the other hand.

Edited by mttvolcano, 09 May 2011 - 02:53 PM.

[Capsule in Space]

I can't tell as I've yet to read both these accounts. Only thing I know is such recollections nearly always tend to be highly bowdlerised and subjective versions of the events, generally edited to give the whole affair an anecdotal and entertaining nature. So I suppose the truth - whatever you want to call truth in that context - lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. But if we narrow down the issue to the crucial quest whether Moore was up for one more time, then I'm defintely with David Schofield and Broccoli. Had the opportunity been there we'd probably have seen Moore in TLD.

Theories going both ways have their merits, and either of them could be true. I guess I'm with the "middle" theory too. I think Sir Moore would have been fine either way. He knew he was too old, so he was fine with retiring. If EON needed him for one more, and there were in a jam like they were when producing Octopussy, then he might have come back. I think he was leaning more towards retirement then coming back though.

On that note, one might beg the question, "What if Timothy Dalton had starred in GOLDENEYE?"

It would have been the best damn Bond film until the Craig movies; if you want, I can e-mail you the script they'd written with him in mind.

What are some of the differences that stand out?

[Perry]

Perhaps if they'd have cast a more seasoned actress for the part of Kara and in someways re-worked the character?

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I find that, in a hidden way, the prologue for VIEW updates Fleming's short story. Namely: it involves the Russians directly into a leak inside a Ministry of Defense contractor, shows Bond "replacing" a dead colleague and riding a motorbike of sorts. Even if they had filmed it exactly as in the book, it wouldn't have been more than five-10 minutes of screen time. Interesting that VIEW was the first film in a long time to link Bond's initial adventure to the main plot.

I find that VIEW's prologue updates the short story. You get the Russians directly involved on a leak into the Ministry of Defense (NATO in the story), Bond "replaces" a dead agent and gets to ride a motorbike of sorts. Even if they'd adapted it more faithfully, it wouldn't have been more than 10 minutes at the beginning of a 2-hour plus film.
A similar thing happens in DAYLIGHTS, which very loosely uses Quantum of Solace for inspiration. Can you spot where?

[Mickeba]

I think it would have been pretty awful. I love Rog. I watch Golden Gun more than probly any other Bond. I think he definitely should have left even after Octopussy. In View, he was just too old to be believable in the role any longer.

[The Shark]

I thought Roger Moore was credible playing an aging Bond.

[00 Brosnan]

I thought Roger Moore was credible playing an aging Bond.

He was credible playing an "older" Bond, but where do you draw the line? Eventually, "older" is "too old."

In OP, he really didn't look too bad and it helped that they cast a female lead closer to his age. In AVTAK though, he just plain looks much older and then they cast a 20-something female lead on top of that...things gets to be creepy and all around unbelievable at that point.

[The Shark]

I thought Roger Moore was credible playing an aging Bond.

He was credible playing an "older" Bond, but where do you draw the line?

I don't. I have no problem seeing a geriatric Bond.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film. This is where AVTAK fails for me. I'm not sure why Cubby and company couldn't have let Bond - and Moore - age gracefully, rather than desperately trying to pretend that he was fortyish when he was obviously in his late-fifties.

I think audiences would have been fine with an older Bond, particularly one played by an actor that they liked and had grown used to in the role.

[The Shark]

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film.

He is. It's the old pre-war generation being disenfranchised by the ruthless new breed of yuppies. Bond, Tibbett, Miss Moneypenny, M, Q, Gogol - versus the product of a surviving Nazi war criminal. Young against old.

[Dustin]

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film. This is where AVTAK fails for me. I'm not sure why Cubby and company couldn't have let Bond - and Moore - age gracefully, rather than desperately trying to pretend that he was fortyish when he was obviously in his late-fifties.

I think audiences would have been fine with an older Bond, particularly one played by an actor that they liked and had grown used to in the role.

Very true (and your screen name from North Sea Hijack attests to it): Bond could have been depicted as a 50+ agent with someone as popular as Moore (or Connery, as NSNA proves). Only, he was never really allowed to do so. Part of it may have been to do with the stronger emphasis on action that already started during the last Moore films. The solution was to just make extensive use of stuntmen and insert Moore's face, sometimes with not-so-sophisticated blue screen work. Had the action been lower key, and adapted to the requirements of a not-38-any-bloody-moore agent then I think an older Bond could have been accepted by the audience.

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film.

He is. It's the old pre-war generation being disenfranchised by the ruthless new breed of yuppies. Bond, Tibbett, Miss Moneypenny, M, Q, Gogol - versus the product of a surviving Nazi war criminal. Young against old.

Indeed, but not at all a theme of the film. The Nazi background is just mentioned in a half-sentence or two, not more. Many in the audience may have missed it entirely and Zorin isn't holding Hitlerian speeches of how the Arian race is in danger of being assimilated or overrun by whomever such folk deems worthy of their hate. Nor does he walk about in his black breeches and Sam Browne. The Nazi offspring is very much a lost theme in my view. Zorin could as well be the Irish owner of a dairy factory out to corner the cheese market, it would have played out just as well. Ok, the fight at the end would have been on Dublin's Ha'penny Bridge and the blimp would have been a bit overkill, but otherwise...

Edited by Dustin, 13 May 2011 - 06:40 PM.

[The Shark]

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film.

He is. It's the old pre-war generation being disenfranchised by the ruthless new breed of yuppies. Bond, Tibbett, Miss Moneypenny, M, Q, Gogol - versus the product of a surviving Nazi war criminal. Young against old.

Indeed, but not at all a theme of the film. The Nazi background is just mentioned in a half-sentence or two, not more. Many in the audience may have missed it entirely and Zorin isn't holding Hitlerian speeches of how the Arian race is in danger of being assimilated or overrun by whomever such folk deems worthy of their hate.

I agree that the Nazi background is pushed aside, but it isn't essential at all. All it implies is that Zorin is the 'perfect specifiable' of the old. Not that he's a Nazi himself. Just an anarcho-Yuppie. It's what he represents to Moore's almost chivalric code (all right, not that chivalric - but in comparison) - to the boundless, Gordon Gekko greed of Zorin.

Whether or not the film handles this thesis well, is open to debate.

[Dustin]

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film.

He is. It's the old pre-war generation being disenfranchised by the ruthless new breed of yuppies. Bond, Tibbett, Miss Moneypenny, M, Q, Gogol - versus the product of a surviving Nazi war criminal. Young against old.

Indeed, but not at all a theme of the film. The Nazi background is just mentioned in a half-sentence or two, not more. Many in the audience may have missed it entirely and Zorin isn't holding Hitlerian speeches of how the Arian race is in danger of being assimilated or overrun by whomever such folk deems worthy of their hate.

I agree that the Nazi background is pushed aside, but it isn't essential at all. All it implies is that Zorin is the 'perfect specifiable' of the old. Not that he's a Nazi himself. Just an anarcho-Yuppie. It's what he represents to Moore's almost chivalric code (all right, not that chivalric - but in comparison) - to the boundless, Gordon Gekko greed of Zorin.

Whether or not the film handles this thesis well, is open to debate.

Gordon Gekko is a splendid comparison here, all the more so as he's become the epitome and prototype of practically the entire London City as well as NYSE and all the other palaces of our neon-and-trumpery religion across the world. He's at the same time much more distinctive than Zorin and much less obvious, a rot that pervaded society so fast and so completely that the role model was in every banker's and broker's head by the end of the year.

Zorin in comparison, even though aspiring to mass murder and flushing out the competition with a large part of the Pacific, still remains somewhat flat and uninspiring. A case of a villain becoming larger than life and at the same time missing out on much of the intimidating potential.

[The Shark]

I have no problem with an aging Bond, either, but he needs to be acknowledged as such within the film.

He is. It's the old pre-war generation being disenfranchised by the ruthless new breed of yuppies. Bond, Tibbett, Miss Moneypenny, M, Q, Gogol - versus the product of a surviving Nazi war criminal. Young against old.

Indeed, but not at all a theme of the film. The Nazi background is just mentioned in a half-sentence or two, not more. Many in the audience may have missed it entirely and Zorin isn't holding Hitlerian speeches of how the Arian race is in danger of being assimilated or overrun by whomever such folk deems worthy of their hate.

I agree that the Nazi background is pushed aside, but it isn't essential at all. All it implies is that Zorin is the 'perfect specifiable' of the old. Not that he's a Nazi himself. Just an anarcho-Yuppie. It's what he represents to Moore's almost chivalric code (all right, not that chivalric - but in comparison) - to the boundless, Gordon Gekko greed of Zorin.

Whether or not the film handles this thesis well, is open to debate.

Gordon Gekko is a splendid comparison here, all the more so as he's become the epitome and prototype of practically the entire London City as well as NYSE and all the other palaces of our neon-and-trumpery religion across the world. He's at the same time much more distinctive than Zorin and much less obvious, a rot that pervaded society so fast and so completely that the role model was in every banker's and broker's head by the end of the year.

Zorin in comparison, even though aspiring to mass murder and flushing out the competition with a large part of the Pacific, still remains somewhat flat and uninspiring. A case of a villain becoming larger than life and at the same time missing out on much of the intimidating potential.

To state the obvious, the menace of Zorin lies not in the script itself, but Walken's interpretation of the character - which does come the closest (if not in the same league) a Bond villain has ever got to Gekko.

Though I have to say, Bond villains are rarely subtle - even in Fleming (with a few notable exceptions). They're grotesque, all-powerful, acmes of our culture's nightmares. Never exactly authentic.

------------

Though personally, I fear the statist bullies who seek to protect us through soft-authoritarianism, just as much. If not sometimes more, in my more Libertarian moods.

But then, neither am I a selfish, Randroid objectivitist. That would be contradiction of my faith, and my humanity.

[Dustin]

To state the obvious, the menace of Zorin lies not in the script itself, but Walken's interpretation of the character - which does come the closest (if not in the same league) a Bond villain has ever got to Gekko.

Though I have to say, Bond villains are rarely subtle - even in Fleming (with a few notable exceptions). They're grotesque, all-powerful, acmes of our culture's nightmares. Never exactly authentic.

------------

Though personally, I fear the statist bullies who seek to protect us through soft-authoritarianism, just as much. If not sometimes more, in my more Libertarian moods.

But then, neither am I a selfish, Randroid objectivitist. That would be contradiction of my faith, and my humanity.

Very true, the Bond villain in general doesn't shine through subtlety. But I felt Walken was missing a lot of villainy, perhaps due to the make-up that seems a bit odd, at least from today's point of view. I find Walken in almost every other of his roles, from The Deer Hunter to The Dead Zone to God's Army and Sleepy Hollow practically oozing with evil and danger in varying degrees of bestiality and madness. Max Zorin, while acted with panache and gusto by one of the truly great professionals of his art, falls painfully flat in comparison to these other characters (when even a "good" role such as Johnny Smith leaves the audience behind with a feeling of unease).

Edited by Dustin, 13 May 2011 - 08:40 PM.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I like Walken, but he seemed miscast in this. I wonder what it would have been like with original choice David Bowie.

[Capsule in Space]

Though personally, I fear the statist bullies who seek to protect us through soft-authoritarianism, just as much. If not sometimes more, in my more Libertarian moods.

But then, neither am I a selfish, Randroid objectivitist. That would be contradiction of my faith, and my humanity.

Am I reading a James Bond thread, or a transcript of a discussion between William F. Buckley and Malcolm Muggeridge!

Kidding aside, I think your understanding of the essence of the Zorin character is spot on. Zorin is a 1980's baby-boomer wanting to make a lot of money. I, being a capitalist, say there is nothing wrong with that. However, like the character of Gekko, Zorin takes his yuppie ambition too far. Of course this being a Bond film, "too far" means planting an atomic device in Silicon Valley. Whereas Gekko's SEC violations seem to pale in comparison.

I really like your comments about this being a "young vs. old" plot. It's an interesting way of looking at the film's plot. So, A View to a Kill depicts an assortment of heroes from the Greatest Generation led by Roger Moore. Their mission is to stop the excessive greed of the baby-boomer Zorin (and the excessive use of make-up by May Day ).

All in all, we end up with a finished product that serves as a time capsule containing several aspects that defined the 1980's. For me that's one of the film's redeeming qualities because I find the decade fascinating. On top of Walken's great performance, and Sir Roger's charm (albeit "aged" charm), you end up with a Bond film that is very fun. I am glad it was Roger's last film. It was a good note to leave on.

"Randroid objectivitist. That would be contradiction of my faith, and my humanity."

Well as far as that goes, the atheist Rand wouldn't take too kindly to anyone trying to inject faith into her philosophy!

Edited by Capsule in Space, 14 May 2011 - 03:09 AM.

[mttvolcano]

I do like how I have made a pretty good thread...

[Dustin]

I do like how I have made a pretty good thread...

A fine thread indeed.

Zorin is a 1980's baby-boomer wanting to make a lot of money. I, being a capitalist, say there is nothing wrong with that. However, like the character of Gekko, Zorin takes his yuppie ambition too far. Of course this being a Bond film, "too far" means planting an atomic device in Silicon Valley. Whereas Gekko's SEC violations seem to pale in comparison.

Zorin is very much in the Goldfinger tradition (film version here) of villains. He's out to pursue his own very special idea of happiness, and that entails - unfortunately - a few million deaths. But as far as his dedication to capitalism is concerned, well, there's nothing to criticise there. A hundred per cent pure greed, passes all the relevant money-grubbing tests and would immediately get a green card and a warm handshake if that was the only criterion.

The thing is, naked capitalism itself does not contain a moral dimension. Its only citerion is its own success; its only purpose its own continued spreading. Without the superstructure of values, convictions and moral evaluation, without the ethical dimension, capitalism would be completely, utterly without restraints. That's what we see whwn Goldfinger relates the deaths of Fort Knox to the number of individual transport victims in the United States in 24 months. There is no restraining limit, no taboo that would make Goldfinger hesitate in his activities. It need not be verbalised as such in the dialogue, on a subconscious level the audience understands and accepts this. This is the super-villain reasoning about thousands of deaths to make his own gold hoard increase its worth tenfold.

Gekko on the other hand is very open and verbal about his conviction, after all he has to introduce a novice to his own philosophy. Who needs a moral compass when it just hinders you to make money? Who needs scruples when they merely stand between you and the first, next, last million profit? Friends? Conscience? Not even minor concerns for Gekko. Gekko's state of mind is perfectly reasonable and logic within his own convictions. He doesn't kill millions, but only because in his line of business there's no profit in such behaviour. Gekko is Goldfinger, reduced to realistic proportions and an authentic setting of modern day stock trading. And Gekko is the role model for millions of young urban and unscrupulous professionals.

Makes one think a bit, doesn't it?

[Master Dahark]

What if Roger Moore stayed in for the living daylights?

For one thing, TLD's poster may have looked something like this one(not my photoshop work):

http://images1.snapf...49:2:6325nu0mrj

'That's right amigo.... it's MINE'

[Capsule in Space]

I do like how I have made a pretty good thread...

A fine thread indeed.

Zorin is a 1980's baby-boomer wanting to make a lot of money. I, being a capitalist, say there is nothing wrong with that. However, like the character of Gekko, Zorin takes his yuppie ambition too far. Of course this being a Bond film, "too far" means planting an atomic device in Silicon Valley. Whereas Gekko's SEC violations seem to pale in comparison.

Zorin is very much in the Goldfinger tradition (film version here) of villains. He's out to pursue his own very special idea of happiness, and that entails - unfortunately - a few million deaths. But as far as his dedication to capitalism is concerned, well, there's nothing to criticise there. A hundred per cent pure greed, passes all the relevant money-grubbing tests and would immediately get a green card and a warm handshake if that was the only criterion.

The thing is, naked capitalism itself does not contain a moral dimension. Its only citerion is its own success; its only purpose its own continued spreading. Without the superstructure of values, convictions and moral evaluation, without the ethical dimension, capitalism would be completely, utterly without restraints. That's what we see whwn Goldfinger relates the deaths of Fort Knox to the number of individual transport victims in the United States in 24 months. There is no restraining limit, no taboo that would make Goldfinger hesitate in his activities. It need not be verbalised as such in the dialogue, on a subconscious level the audience understands and accepts this. This is the super-villain reasoning about thousands of deaths to make his own gold hoard increase its worth tenfold.

Gekko on the other hand is very open and verbal about his conviction, after all he has to introduce a novice to his own philosophy. Who needs a moral compass when it just hinders you to make money? Who needs scruples when they merely stand between you and the first, next, last million profit? Friends? Conscience? Not even minor concerns for Gekko. Gekko's state of mind is perfectly reasonable and logic within his own convictions. He doesn't kill millions, but only because in his line of business there's no profit in such behaviour. Gekko is Goldfinger, reduced to realistic proportions and an authentic setting of modern day stock trading. And Gekko is the role model for millions of young urban and unscrupulous professionals.

Makes one think a bit, doesn't it?

It is thought provoking! Hmm Goldfinger and Gekko, one in the same...hmm. Both greedy capitalists that exploit anything they can for profit. I guess my question is are they greedy because they are capitalists, or are they just simply greedy? I remember that it is a Red Chinese agent who supplies Goldfinger with the atomic device. Was the communist motivated by capitalist greed to help Goldfinger with his plan? I guess the way I see it greedy people exploit any system, whether it be a communist system or a capitalist system, to achieve their greedy objectives. Zorin did the same thing using both communist Russia and capitalistic Western powers to achieve his goals. What do you think?

[Cornbread17]

Whoever has the Dalton GoldenEye script, I would love a copy of it (email it to [email protected])

Here is my take on this ordeal:

Pre-credits teaser certainly wouldn't have worked because the physicality of the role would be a stretch for Bond.

The title song and titles as perfect. Don't change a thing.

The defection scene, with a few tweaks would have worked, but Moore simply isn't as strong as Dalton in darker scenes of the defection, but the humorous ones ("Strictly on a need to know basis.") would have scored.

The whole bit with the escape is fine, since Bond was barely there in those scenes.

MI6 scenes would have worked, unless they kept the new Moneypenny, then it would have been Smallbush all over again.

Bratislava scenes could have worked, if Milovy was older.

The ice chase would have worked fine with Moore, yet again the humor would have worked perfectly.

The scenes in Vienna would have flopped terribly with Moore, except the part with buying the dress, but the whole bit with Necros and the sliding door would have failed miserably. As much as like Moore, he simply is too jovial to do Bond justice in these scenes.

Some parts in Morocco could have worked to Moore's advantage, but yet again Dalton is better this part as well. Sure in FYEO, he did a few serious bits to great effect, but the drugging scene, the assassination attempt, and confrontation with Pushkin simply would be turned into laughs. Yeah, Gogol would've helped, but not to the extent people think he would have done.

Afghanistan scenes wouldn't have worked at all, especially with all the stunt work in the plane, on the ground, in the netting, etc...

The ending with Brad Whitaker and the very end with Milovy would have just been too comical.

So, if the film was shot with Moore, it would have flopped pretty badly, except for the theme; a-ha is a huge talent for an aging star to hinder badly.

AS much as I love Moore, Dalton was smashing as Bond in TLD. Bar none.

[The Shark]

As much as like Moore, he simply is too jovial to do Bond justice in these scenes.

Not sure I agree with this. What about his demeanor in TMWTGG, or his more sombre tone in MR, FYEO, OP and AVTAK?

Moore's gravitas seems to be overlooked by most fans.

[coco1997]

True. I'd say Roger's Bond had at least one 'hard-' moment in each film:

LALD: Holding Rosie Carver at gunpoint

TMWTGG: Pretty much all his behavior throughout, which would later be considered very uncharacteristic of his overall performance as 007

TSWLM: Four words: "What a helpful chap." 'Nuff said.

MR: Shooting Drax's hired gun out of the tree and his reaction after being saved from the centrifuge by Dr. Goodhead

FYEO: Kicking Locque to his death in "FYEO"

OP: Interrogating and holding at gunpoint Orlov on the train and slaying Grischka. "And that's for 009".

Can't really recall anything from "AVTAK", as I haven't seen that film in ages, but I'm sure there are at least a moment or two. Point is, Roger could definitely have convinced us as the tough, gritty Bond of Connery and Dalton had the scripts been written that way. I for one personally believe Roger got better with age, so an early-mid 1980s Bond film with Roger portraying 007 as he did in "TMWTGG" could very well have been his best performance of the series.

[00 Brosnan]

I think Moore did show a tough/gritty side at points throughout his tenure as some have pointed out. But, he was also very good with the playboy-style interpretation. It wasn't until OP when everything became a punchline, he definitely showed some toughness in LALD-FYEO.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 03 June 2011 - 02:34 AM.

[Dustin]

It is thought provoking! Hmm Goldfinger and Gekko, one in the same...hmm. Both greedy capitalists that exploit anything they can for profit. I guess my question is are they greedy because they are capitalists, or are they just simply greedy? I remember that it is a Red Chinese agent who supplies Goldfinger with the atomic device. Was the communist motivated by capitalist greed to help Goldfinger with his plan? I guess the way I see it greedy people exploit any system, whether it be a communist system or a capitalist system, to achieve their greedy objectives. Zorin did the same thing using both communist Russia and capitalistic Western powers to achieve his goals. What do you think?

They are probably greedy because they are humans, nothing else. Capitalism just provides the best possible environment for them to prosper, but they would probably also have a morally lacking character under any other economic system. After all capitalism is the one system that can reasonably claim to offer a maximum set of opportunities for any given interest, as long as each sees to their own. Only to be expected that those knowing no restraints also prosper the most under such conditions. Having a political competitor in these cases just opens the door to increase the potential profit of their respective endeavours.

And of course we do not learn about the activities of the typical Bond villain aimed at the other side and helped along by ours.