Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Pierce From 95-2002


12 replies to this topic

#1 DavidJones

DavidJones

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:27 AM

Is it just me or did he seem to age rapidly from Goldeneye to even The World Is Not Enough? Maybe it's not aging in a bad way neccessarily, but he certainly looked different than he did in Goldeneye.



#2 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

I totally agree - he maintains a decent look in 'GoldenEye' and 'Tomorrow Never Dies', but starts looking a bit ropey in 'The World Is Not Enough' and especially 'Die Another Day'

 

I always remember the promo shots from 1995 compared to 2002. 7 years I know, but still, a big change!

 

634.Goldeneye3.mh.102512.jpg

 

pierce-brosnan-james-bond-3.jpg



#3 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:05 PM

2002 surely?

#4 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:23 PM

Well, these movies certainly are tough on every actor. With Connery one did not notice at first, since the first four were done pretty close to one another. But even the gap between 1967´s YOLT and 1971´s DAF proved that Connery ageing only four years was pretty tough on him.

 

IMO, even Sir Roger was ageing fast between MR and OP (not to mention AVTAK).

 

Heck, Timothy Dalton´s hairline receded between TLD and LTK pretty rapidly.

 

And I must admit, comparing "Skyfall"´s DC with "Casino Royale"´s DC...

 

Conclusion: Being James Bond is not good for your health/looks. 



#5 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:36 PM

True enough! Because even the ONE film can do you in over the space of 1969.

 

10030.gif lazenby-250-jpg_215751.jpg



#6 scissorpuppy007

scissorpuppy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 105 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

 It's one of the issues with casting Bond to always look in his early 40's. People age, and once people get into their mid 40's, even a span of time as little as two years can show a huge difference.

In 1994/95 when Goldeneye was filmed Brosnan still had his "thin as a rail" male model look going, for TND he started doing more weight training. He appears "thicker" in TND and with the shorter haircut probably looked his best overall for the role. IMO his Goldeneye "mop" haircut was 5 years out of date, would have worked fine for the opening but should have been a bit shorter during the rest of the film.

 

 At 42, his hair was starting to grey around the edges and is noticeable in Goldeneye, and they may have dyed his hair for TND because I don't recall seeing any grey. Onto TWINE/DAD I'm not sure if it was a conscious decision or lack of caring by the hair/make-up department (perhaps the producers or Brosnan himself wanted to show Bond aging gracefully) but his looks in TWINE and DAD compared to Thomas Crown & Tailor of Panama have Bond looking much older than his other roles. Perhaps it was the hair dye? Unless he went grey over night, his hair in TC/TTOP is much darker than in the Bond films. Also, for some reason he appears pale in skintone in TWINE/DAD which doesn't help his appearance of age. The digital color grading in DAD doesn't help the skintone issue either, on the original dvd they have a comparison of the opening segment and Brosnan's skintone changes drastically. In DAD, the color grading issue and hair/make-up didn't do him any favors, he was only 48! What is strange to me, is after DAD Brosnan seemed to look the same for another 8 years, it was only recently that I saw him and though "wow, he's getting old". But yeah, his appearance between 1995 and 1999 is a big change.

 

 Think of all the Hollywood actors out there who star in action films into their 50's, how do they pull it off? Make-up/lighting. For some reason the Bond producers never took note of this, they didn't even notice the way Dalton looked in a good section of LTK, 2 years later in The Rocketeer his hair looked perfect. 

 

 Craig is starting to age quickly as well, being 45 now it's only going to get faster. The difference with Craig is 1. He's always had a rough look 2. The character arch they are taking with his Bond works with the

"wearing down" of the character. As long as they keep that up, his aging in the role won't be as off putting as trying to have a 50 year old man come off as a 39 year old playboy.


Edited by scissorpuppy007, 28 February 2013 - 09:46 PM.


#7 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 28 February 2013 - 07:51 PM

I remember thinking it would have been interesting if they released the 20th film in 2001 and the 21st film in 2002 on the 40th anniversary or if they had planned Dalton or Brosnan to debate like Connery or Moore did their first films coming out only a year after another. 



#8 DavidJones

DavidJones

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:35 PM

Roger also looked older in AVTAK than he had in OP, though I'm not sure why this is. His eyes seem much bluer and his hair a lot lighter (though I'm not knocking him - I always thought Roger looked the same from his Saint yours on, practically had a quasi-Cliff Richard thing going).



#9 scissorpuppy007

scissorpuppy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 105 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:50 PM

Roger also looked older in AVTAK than he had in OP, though I'm not sure why this is. His eyes seem much bluer and his hair a lot lighter (though I'm not knocking him - I always thought Roger looked the same from his Saint yours on, practically had a quasi-Cliff Richard thing going).

 

 According to rumors/legend Moore had a facelift after Octopussy, it's also the reason his famous mole is missing, during the facelift it was removed as a precaution. He also looked like he had been to the tanning salon one to many times. Not sure what was up with his hair, other than he was a natural blonde and probably going grey, his blonde hair was just getting lighter and lighter. 

 

 As far as his eyes goes, Moore has always needed to wear thick glasses due to extreme near sightedness, I have read that in AVTAK he is wearing (possibly colored) contacts.


Edited by scissorpuppy007, 28 February 2013 - 09:59 PM.


#10 00 Brosnan

00 Brosnan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Location:East Coast, U.S

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:44 PM

Brosnan looked his best in Tomorrow Never Dies in my opinion. His hair still had some length to it and he was a little more bulked up than in GoldenEye. He looked consistently young mid 40s until Die Another Day, he definitely looks older.

 

The fact that his hair kept getting shorter and shorter contributed somewhat in my opinion to his looking older.

 

There's always a cut-off point with each actor who's done more than two films. Which movie did they look noticeably older in... for me:

 

- Connery: YOLT - He still looked fit and much better than he did only 4 years later in DAF, but noticeably heavier than DN - TB.

- Moore: FYEO - He looked noticeably older to me and this is when his hair started getting bigger and lighter with each film.

- Brosnan: DAD - Shortest hair of his tenure and they let a lot of grey show. Face has definitely aged, not quite that 90s model look anymore.

- Craig: I'm guessing Bond 24. You can tell in SF he's aged slightly, but not enough to be noticeable at every angle you look at him.

 

 



#11 Mallory

Mallory

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 161 posts
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:34 PM

I don't think we can blame Moore's appearance in AVTK on age. More like a bad facelift.

#12 DavidJones

DavidJones

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 347 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:16 PM

I don't think we can blame Moore's appearance in AVTK on age. More like a bad facelift.

 

I don't know why he bothered with one. He looked fine in Octopussy.



#13 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:13 AM

True enough! Because even the ONE film can do you in over the space of 1969.

10030.gif lazenby-250-jpg_215751.jpg


Well, I think he did the whole long hair/beard thing in order to disasociate himself from 007 since he was so difficult to work with and figured his career would skyrocket after OHMSS.