1519 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Oh absolutely. I totally agree with Loomis that it's simply not possible or wise to let one actor star in seven Bond films. But I don't think four or five is too much to ask. In that time, an actor can establish himself as Bond.  

Owen might be willing to do four or even five, and Jackman might get bored after a similar number of films, for different reasons. Why might Jackman get bored? Well, he may not be a character actor like Owen, and he may be more willing to commit to a franchise, but he has his own set of circumstances that might cause him to tire of Bond. As I see it, Jackman is verging on major stardom. A few years from now, I reckon he'll be as big as his fellow Antipodeans Russell Crowe and Mel Gibson. I don't think Jackman needs Bond the way Brosnan needed Bond. Apart from "Remington Steele", what has Brosnan done of note outside Bond? THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR and THE TAILOR OF PANAMA - and he only got to do those films because of his fame as 007. Jackman is in a much better position careerwise than Brosnan was before he donned the tux, and he might, I repeat, might not wish to do more than three or four Bond flicks for fear of missing out on the great opportunities that seem very likely to come his way.

Originally posted by crashdrive

Here's a quote from the 'Die Another Day' review by Roger Ebert: "I realized with a smile, 15 minutes into the new James Bond movie, that I had unconsciously accepted Pierce Brosnan as Bond without thinking about Sean Connery, Roger Moore or anyone else. He has become the landlord, not the tenant." I don't know about you, but I want new landlords, not new tenants.  

Wow, Ebert only accepted Brosnan as Bond with DIE ANOTHER DAY? What took him so long? Seriously, I accepted Brosnan as Bond - the landlord, not the tenant - within minutes of the start of GOLDENEYE. Judging by their delighted reactions and wild applause, the audience I first saw the film with did too. By the time of TOMORROW NEVER DIES, there was absolutely no doubt about it whatsoever: Brosnan was James Bond, no fears, no doubts, no substitutes (or however it goes). I guess audiences are often quicker off the mark than critics, and more open to new things. I accept that launching a new actor as Bond is always risky, but I believe that audiences are nearly always excited about a fresh face.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
Owen might be willing to do four or even five, and Jackman might get bored after a similar number of films, for different reasons.

Owen might be willing, but I find it most unlikely. I find it unlikely he would even agree to sign on to three after 'King Arthur', let alone four or five. It may be an assumption, but so is your comment that he might make four or five. I don't think Jackman is a superstar quite yet. 'Van Helsing' will be his first big test. He's not that well known at the moment. All of his hits were ensemble films ('Swordfish', 'The X Men'). He has yet to carry a film on his own. But Clive Owen is 'in danger' of becoming a major star in his own right. 'Beyond Borders' looks more promising than Jackman's efforts besides 'Swordfish' & 'X-Men' and of course there's 'King Arthur' which will be just as big (maybe bigger) than 'Van Helsing'. Careerwise Owen and Jackman will be in exactly the same position. The difference between the two is that Jackman has made comments that he really wants the role whereas Owen only said he "would consider it" and that Jackman doesn't mind signing on to a franchise. The odds are on Jackmans side.

I agree that audiences definately get excited about a fresh face, but only if they feel the need to see one. If they like one Bond actor and after two films he'll quit, I'm sure many casual fans will think; "this new guy is nowhere near as good as the last one." The flipside to that coin is that you might get another Tim Dalton. Someone casual fans won't like. Than they'll go; "I didn't like the last one, so let's skip the next one." Had Brosnan stepped in two years after Dalton, 'GoldenEye' would not have been the success it turned out to be. The first rule of entertainment is 'give the people what they want', but the money men know that the second rule is 'keep them hungry'. If you change your leading man every two films, people will tune out, because they would lose the one thing that has kept the Bond franchise alive; if someone walks into a Bond film, they know what to expect.

[M_Balje]

I think the new Bond must sign for at least 4 movie's wih an option for an fift movie.
I think fans don't accept that a guy who play bond good Finished after 2 or 3 movie's.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

the next actor should do 6 at the most, i am not like some, i dont get bored with the same actor, i dont have ADD i can be content with the same actor

[JimmyBond]

Well, the contract now is for 3 films and an option for a fourth. How is one more film that different.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

well it should be like rogers last movies after moonraker...he just kept coming back at the 11th hour

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

Owen might be willing, but I find it most unlikely. I find it unlikely he would even agree to sign on to three after 'King Arthur', let alone four or five. ... 'Beyond Borders' looks more promising than Jackman's efforts besides 'Swordfish' & 'X-Men' and of course there's 'King Arthur' which will be just as big (maybe bigger) than 'Van Helsing'.  

You're putting too much faith in your crystal ball, crash. It remains to be seen how well KING ARTHUR will do, and what effect it will have on Owen's career. For that matter, none of us knows how audiences will respond to BEYOND BORDERS and VAN HELSING.

As William Goldman puts it, no one knows anything. I remember friends of mine in the film industry, very respected producers and critics with excellent connections, telling me just a few weeks before it opened that GOLDENEYE would bomb. They were absolutely convinced that it would be the biggest turkey in the history of the series. Even a guy who's one of the most famous critics in America, who'd seen a 20- or 30-minute preview version, was sure that it would be a stinker and that no one would be interested in seeing it. Just a few days before GOLDENEYE opened, I heard some Joe Blow on the radio talking about it, having seen it at a sneak preview. He was going ballistic with enthusiasm, saying: "It's gonna rake it in." I was very surprised, because all the "experts" had been painting a picture of doom and gloom. They also made similar remarks about other films that became smashes, and failed to spot winners. No one knows anything. Even people in the know.

Originally posted by crashdrive

If you change your leading man every two films, people will tune out, because they would lose the one thing that has kept the Bond franchise alive; if someone walks into a Bond film, they know what to expect.  

People always know what to expect of a Bond film, regardless of who's playing 007. Even ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL didn't stray that far from the formula.

Audiences are by now well used to seeing a new Bond actor every few years. No actor owns the part. Brosnan will be replaced by a new guy who'll become James Bond in the public mind, just as Connery and Moore were replaced.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Loomis


You're putting too much faith in your crystal ball, crash. It remains to be seen how well KING ARTHUR will do, and what effect it will have on Owen's career. For that matter, none of us knows how audiences will respond to BEYOND BORDERS and VAN HELSING.

As William Goldman puts it, no one knows anything. I remember friends of mine in the film industry, very respected producers and critics with excellent connections, telling me just a few weeks before it opened that GOLDENEYE would bomb. They were absolutely convinced that it would be the biggest turkey in the history of the series. Even a guy who's one of the most famous critics in America, who'd seen a 20- or 30-minute preview version, was sure that it would be a stinker and that no one would be interested in seeing it. They also made similar remarks about other films that became smashes, and failed to spot winners. No one knows anything. Even people in the know.



People always know what to expect of a Bond film, regardless of who's playing 007. Even ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL didn't stray that far from the formula.  

Audiences are by now well used to seeing a new Bond actor every few years. No actor owns the part. Brosnan will be replaced by a new guy who'll become James Bond in the public mind, just as Connery and Moore were replaced.

well i am not sure about that cause at the end of the day people did not accept dalton, which just proves that you cant just stick daltons and lazenbys on people and have them go for it

[Loomis]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
 
at the end of the day people did not accept dalton, which just proves that you cant just stick daltons and lazenbys on people and have them go for it  

Dalton was accepted with his first film, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS - which I believe outgrossed Moore's final film, A VIEW TO A KILL, in the States. It was only LICENCE TO KILL that was a comparative failure, but, like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, LTK did very well internationally. Let's not forget that Moore's first two Bond outings didn't do particularly well in the US, and that your boy Brosnan's DIE ANOTHER DAY has done much less well in America than internationally.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

even as bad as parts of it were, people would rather watch dad then daltons two turkeys

[Loomis]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007

people would rather watch dad then daltons two turkeys  

What do you mean by "people"? You mean everyone in the world? That's a pretty huge claim, no?

How can you dismiss THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL as turkeys? TLD did very well at the box office both in the States and internationally, and the reviews were genuinely very positive. It took more money and had much better reviews than A VIEW TO A KILL, but I don't notice you branding AVTAK a turkey. Among Bond fans, TLD is often considered one of the very best films of the series. LTK didn't do very well at the US box office, but it was a big international hit and also got some great reviews. If TLD and LTK had totally died at the box office and been universally slammed by critics, you'd have a point calling them turkeys, but both films actually did pretty well.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Loomis


What do you mean by "people"? You mean everyone in the world? That's a pretty huge claim, no?  

How can you dismiss THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL as turkeys? TLD did very well at the box office both in the States and internationally, and the reviews were genuinely very positive. It took more money and had much better reviews than A VIEW TO A KILL, but I don't notice you branding AVTAK a turkey. Among Bond fans, TLD is often considered one of the very best films of the series. LTK didn't do very well at the US box office, but it was a big international hit and also got some great reviews. If TLD and LTK had totally died at the box office and been universally slammed by critics, you'd have a point calling them turkeys, but both films actually did pretty well.

we moore fans dont care to much for dalton and his turkey films

[Loomis]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007

we moore fans dont care to much for dalton and his turkey films  

Again, Finesse, you're assuming that your views are shared by everyone. Do you speak for all Moore fans? Plenty of people who like Moore also like Dalton. Plenty of Dalton fans love Moore, too.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Loomis


Again, Finesse, you're assuming that your views are shared by everyone. Do you speak for all Moore fans? Plenty of people who like Moore also like Dalton. Plenty of Dalton fans love Moore, too.

i would say the bigger part of us dont care for them

[Loomis]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007

i would say the bigger part of us dont care for them  

There's no way of proving that. And why seek majority approval anyway? You're free to dislike Dalton, but, personally, I'm just glad that I like Moore and Dalton. In fact, I think all of the Bond actors have done excellent work: Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. I can enjoy all their eras.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Loomis


There's no way of proving that. And why seek majority approval anyway? You're free to dislike Dalton, but, personally, I'm just glad that I like Moore and Dalton. In fact, I think all of the Bond actors have done excellent work: Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. I can enjoy all their eras.

i agree with that, even though i dont like daltons version as much as the others it is still bond, there fore i most embrace it to some degree:)

[Pussfeller]

I know this sounds ridiculous, but when I read the novels, I picture Bond as looking like John Stamos and having a voice like Sean Bean.

Bizarre, no?

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
You're putting too much faith in your crystal ball, crash.

I guess time will tell. I do have a lot of faith in my crystal ball though and perhaps you will also with time my friend But my trusted ball hasn't always been right. Three years ago, I focused my attention on the preproduction of 'Spider-Man'. I did predict several of the casting decisions (Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe & James Franco were all names I mentioned a full year before they signed the dotted line) and some of the crew (Sam Raimi was my top choice in a list very similar to my current Future Bond Directors list & Danny Elfman was the composer I had my money on), but dropped the ball on the casting of Maguire (I predicted younger, better looking and more unknown actors like Jake Gyllenhaal, who ended up being Maguire's replacement, Jesse Bradford & Chad Christ of 'Gattaca' fame). It's very possible Jackman may not end up with the part and Clive Owen would step in (or perhaps an unknown actor). But my money is still on Jackman. And truth be told, I think he would do a very credible job. Let's just hope EON will make his Bond different enough from Brosnans. You're right no actor owns the part, but I don't think two films are enough to make an impression. A lot of people still talk about how a third Dalton would have been like. Four to five films should definately be in the realms of possibility. An actor shouldn't be bothered playing Bond if he's not interested in playing him for at least four. At least Jackman shows enthusiasm. Unlike many people here, I think Jackman could be different enough from Brosnan to really make the part his own. Jaelle wrote a couple of messages ago that she wishes "they'd find an actor who could be both a crowd pleaser AND have that element of dark, scary ruthlessness that I'm personally looking for in the next James Bond." After Timothy Dalton, I find it very hard to believe we're gonna get an actor who is darker (or in other words less audience friendly) than Pierce Brosnan. Personally I'm quite happy with the tone of his films. Would it really be such a problem if EON will carry on the same course with the next couple of Bond films?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Pussfeller
I know this sounds ridiculous, but when I read the novels, I picture Bond as looking like John Stamos and having a voice like Sean Bean.  

Bizarre, no?

i can say without a doubt, i have never heard that one before, that shocks even me lol

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I guess time will tell. I do have a lot of faith in my crystal ball though and perhaps you will also with time my friend  

As a matter of fact, I have already have a great deal of faith in your crystal ball. I tend to agree with you on the prospects of potential Bond actors and directors, although our personal tastes seem very different (you want Jackman, I want Owen, etc.). Still, I think neither you nor I will be surprised if Jackman gets the role, or if, say, Ralph Fiennes doesn't. We know who the serious candidates are.

Originally posted by crashdrive

Jaelle wrote a couple of messages ago that she wishes "they'd find an actor who could be both a crowd pleaser AND have that element of dark, scary ruthlessness that I'm personally looking for in the next James Bond." After Timothy Dalton, I find it very hard to believe we're gonna get an actor who is darker (or in other words less audience friendly) than Pierce Brosnan. Personally I'm quite happy with the tone of his films. Would it really be such a problem if EON will carry on the same course with the next couple of Bond films?  

I'm with Jaelle on this one. For me, it would be a problem if they carried on the same tone with the next couple of Bond films, although I have no doubt whatsoever that they'll do just that. As a Bond fan, I like the Brosnan films, although I know in my heart that I'm being very generous in my assessments of them, simply because I'm a fan. I choose to see the glass as half-full, rather than half-empty, but that doesn't alter the fact that the glass is only half-full. I sat through DIE ANOTHER DAY again over the weekend, and as ever found much to enjoy, although I couldn't kid myself: it was bland, dumbed-down Bond, lacking the panache and artistry of many of its predecessors. And that's the problem with the Brosnan era: his Bond is bland, too audience-friendly and eager to please, and so are the films.

Sure, Bond was never Bergman, but the Connery, Lazenby and Dalton eras did give us films with a considerable amount of adult style and artistic risk-taking. So I do want a "darker" Bond actor next time, appearing in "darker" films. I'm not expecting to get what I want, but that doesn't stop me wanting it.

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Loomis
The Connery, Lazenby and Dalton eras did give us films with a considerable amount of adult style and artistic risk-taking.

I'd like to think Brosnans films contain a lot more artistic risk-taking. Any of his films are a lot darker and more adult than say 'Dr. No', 'Goldfinger', 'Thunderball', 'You Only Live Twice', 'Diamonds Are Forever' etc. The pacing is faster and the action more elaborate, but the action in the Connery days for it's time was also very elaborate. We look at it now and say; "those are great spy thrillers", but they were intented as action films; as audience friendly and eager to please. You can find a lot more character development and complicated relationships in the Brosnan films. Sure we could have more (see 'OHMSS', 'TLD' & 'LTK'), but I don't think we can complain. EON is known for learning from their mistakes ('Moonraker') and try to make amends ('For Your Eyes Only'). We'll just see what they'll come up with 'Bond 21'. A new Bond actor is not the ticket for a "darker" Bond. You tend to think bringing in an actor like Owen will mean his films will be darker. Personally, I think we've got a much better chance with Jackman to get darker films, because he will be popular and audience friendly enough for the filmmakers to take some risks. With Owen however, you've already taken a huge risk.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

I'd like to think Brosnans films contain a lot more artistic risk-taking. Any of his films are a lot darker and more adult than say 'Dr. No', 'Goldfinger', 'Thunderball', 'You Only Live Twice', 'Diamonds Are Forever' etc. ... You can find a lot more character development and complicated relationships in the Brosnan films.  

I couldn't disagree more. When I write that I want Bond films to be "adult", I'm not calling for heavy duty, serious drama so much as for the sophistication of days gone by. The Brosnan Bonds treat their viewers like children - absolutely everything must be spelled out to them since they are too stupid to get the message for themselves.

Look at DIE ANOTHER DAY: General Moon informs the audience that the Great Powers carved Korea in two after the Second World War. When Bond meets Zao on the Bridge of No Return, he remarks (as though viewers would otherwise be completely in the dark): "I'm being traded for you." A postcard shot of Hong Kong Island as Bond climbs out of the water is followed by Bond walking past or leaning against (I forget which) a sign reading something like "ROYAL HONG KONG YACHT CLUB".

I don't believe I'm looking back through rose-coloured spectacles at the 1960s as a mythical Golden Age of Bond, but the humour is nowadays much less subtle and more juvenile than it used to be. A quip like "You always were a cunning linguist, James" would in the past have been rejected as much too crude. Likewise, "Read this.... BITCH!" is aimed squarely at Beavises and Butt-heads in American shopping malls.

A film like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE boasts sophisticated wit and lightness of touch. Look at the pre-credits sequence with the Chinese girl. Exotic, sexy, funny and not remotely laboured - the very essence of what a Bond adventure ought to be. How would Lee Tamahori have directed that scene? Would he have shown Bond thrusting and groaning, with the Chinese girl on top, and would he have extended an olive branch to the politically correct by making the Chinese girl, and not Bond, deliver the final killer comeback? (GIRL: "Why do Western men taste different from other men?" BOND: "You think we're better?", etc.) Look also at the Henderson scene, where the whole joke (that probably goes over the heads of many) of Bond accepting his drink "stirred, not shaken" is that, as one posh Brit in the company of another, telling Henderson that he'd got it wrong would amount to an enormous social no-no, regardless of whether he was trying to get information from Henderson.

As mentioned by someone in one of the DVD bonus features, YOLT also features what might be termed lyrical filmmaking. Think of the death of Aki, and Bond's wedding, the way the film luxuriates in local colour and atmosphere. The early Bonds had an intoxicating travelogue quality, taking great delight in their exotic locations. Seems that nowadays MGM/Eon are convinced that we all travel the globe and that they no longer need to bother with this aspect of Bond. Also, "quiet moments" eat into screentime that could be better filled with relentless, mindless action.

Do the Brosnan Bonds have more interesting stories and cleverer screenplays than the 1960s Bonds? I don't think so. And I see neither "character development" nor "complicated relationships" in the Brosnan films - at least, nothing to write home about. Where are the complicated relationships in GOLDENEYE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and DIE ANOTHER DAY? Where is the character development? The only Brosnan Bond flick that attempted to be "dark", "adult" and full of complex characterization and interactions was THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but its attempts were half-baked (and it simultaneously attempted to be a lighthearted, fun-for-all-the-family, audience-pleasing Bond outing with bags and bags of action). To my mind, TWINE is a horribly uneven and unfocused film that is the only entry in the series that I'd be tempted to call pretentious.

So, watch FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and then watch TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Watch THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and then watch GOLDFINGER. Follow a viewing of GOLDENEYE with a viewing of THUNDERBALL, or a viewing of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE with a viewing of DIE ANOTHER DAY. Personally, I'd say that everything from the editing to the music, from the performances to the cinematography, from the writing to the direction, was far superior back in "the good old days", but maybe that's just me.

Originally posted by crashdrive

A new Bond actor is not the ticket for a "darker" Bond. You tend to think bringing in an actor like Owen will mean his films will be darker.  

I don't. I believe I've conceded in past discussions that a "dark" actor (whatever that is) like Owen will by no means guarantee "dark" films. For all I know, an Owen Bond film could be as silly as MOONRAKER.

Originally posted by crashdrive

Personally, I think we've got a much better chance with Jackman to get darker films, because he will be popular and audience friendly enough for the filmmakers to take some risks.  

Well, that didn't happen with Brosnan. At the height of his popularity, what did we get from the Billion Dollar Bond? DIE ANOTHER DAY, that's what.

Frankly, I believe the era of risk-taking and innovation is over, regardless of who's playing Bond. It's all about focus groups, promotional tie-ins, taking great care not to alienate American teenagers, and keeping a beady eye on the bottom line.

[mobydick]

Now, I'm rooting for Jude Law to play the next bond. Certainly better than Owen or Jackman.

[crashdrive]

You make a strong case Loomis. This would be a great discussion, but we're not in the right thread for that. I see where you a coming from, but times have changed. People don't have the patience anymore for that "travelogue quality" in Bond films. That's why I love to watch 'The Tailor of Panama'. It's like that movie was transported from the 60s. It's so full of patience. It's almost like you could smell Panama. But despite Pierce Brosnan and Geoffrey Rush, the movie only grossed $13 million.

I'm trying to make two points. First of all, it doesn't matter who stars, Bond films will more or less stay the same the way they are now. Personally I thought 'The World is Not Enough' was a risky and brave attempt at making a more risky Bond film (although I have to agree the attempts were half baked), but you just can't expect them to make a 'The Tailor of Panama' type of Bond film. Which brings me to my second point; audiences have certain expectations when they watch a Bond movie. They expect action, girls, gadgets, beautiful locations etc. Essentially the same expectations audiences had back in the sixties. The only difference is that audiences are not the same anymore. They don't have the same attention span they had fourty years ago. And all EON can do is adjust to their needs and still try to deliver both a good spy thriller and an entertaining action film. Sure it's full of compromises, but when you make a movie that costs as many as a Bond film and has a high expectation level every two to three years, it's no surprise EON is trying to please as many people as possible.

As for Jude Law, I can't see him playing Bond. He's too short and doesn't fit the Bond stereotype.

[Tarl_Cabot]

"absolutely everything must be spelled out to them since they are too stupid to get the message for themselves. "

How about plastic explosives labled "C-4" in large print?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by crashdrive

People don't have the patience anymore for that "travelogue quality" in Bond films.  

That seems to be an unfortunate assumption on the part of MGM/Eon. But it seems there's still a market for the "travelogue quality":

Originally posted by crashdrive

That's why I love to watch 'The Tailor of Panama'. It's like that movie was transported from the 60s. It's so full of patience. It's almost like you could smell Panama.  

Originally posted by crashdrive

But despite Pierce Brosnan and Geoffrey Rush, the movie only grossed $13 million.  

Why can't the travelogue quality be combined with action (which THE TAILOR OF PANAMA was rather lacking in - not that it was meant to be an action movie)? Look at THE BOURNE IDENTITY - full of great European locations and atmosphere, but it also delivered the goods as a gripping thriller with fights, car chases and shootouts.

Originally posted by crashdrive

you just can't expect them to make a 'The Tailor of Panama' type of Bond film.  

No, but is a BOURNE IDENTITY-style Bond film out of the question? Well, perhaps it is, sadly. I reckon even the likes of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL would be seen by The Powers That Be as too slow-moving and not sufficiently action-packed for today's audiences.

Originally posted by crashdrive

audiences are not the same anymore. They don't have the same attention span they had fourty years ago. And all EON can do is adjust to their needs and still try to deliver both a good spy thriller and an entertaining action film.  

It's too easy to assume that audiences no longer have the attention span they once had, and to pitch films at the lowest common denominator. Personally, I think audiences have perhaps an even greater attention span than ever, judging by some of the "difficult" films that do well these days (ADAPTATION springs to mind as I saw it last night - okay, it's in a very different league to Bond, but I cannot imagine it doing well even a few short years ago).

It's sad and depressing that MGM/Eon underrate their audiences, but I have no doubt that, given the success of DAD, that is what they will continue to do. The Bonds could be as intelligent as the Jack Ryan films or BOURNE and still incorporate mind-blowing action and still make lorryloads of money, but there we are.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Loomis
I couldn't disagree more. When I write that I want Bond films to be "adult", I'm not calling for heavy duty, serious drama so much as for the sophistication of days gone by. The Brosnan Bonds treat their viewers like children - absolutely everything must be spelled out to them since they are too stupid to get the message for themselves.  

[snip mid-section of Loomis' brilliant dissertation]

Frankly, I believe the era of risk-taking and innovation is over, regardless of who's playing Bond. It's all about focus groups, promotional tie-ins, taking great care not to alienate American teenagers, and keeping a beady eye on the bottom line.

I come back to NYC and check the Bond forums after being away for a few days, and see this brilliant post from Loomis. Superb, Loomis, simply inspired. I would've made a mess of it trying to articulate everything you said in this post.

Regarding Brosnan's films and the claim that they've delved into character development and relationships...

I concede that they've sincerely *tried* to do this. I see this definitely in GE, and for me it works, tho it is uneven. TND also tries in the beginning with his relationship with Paris, but then the rest of the film drops all that. TWINE, as Loomis says, is a bit of a muddle. And DAD tries at the start, looks like it might just work, but then becomes something else entirely.

These attempts at greater character development often come off as incomplete, superficial, half-hearted. Except for GE, however, because I think the Bond-Trevelyan relationship works pretty well (as well as Bond-Natalya).

I am often surprised at how much fans love the whole Bond-Elektra thing, because it all just seems to be a great big muddle to me. There are moments when I just about succeed in being won over and that's because of *Pierce's* work, not Sophie Marceau's, whom I find terribly unimpressive as an actress or as any type of screen presence at all. Everyone mentions that moment when he has to kill her, but I feel absolutely nothing. I'm not emotionally invested at all in how he feels about killing her.

The Brosnan films suffer from their greatest asset: a sincere attempt to appeal to all tastes. But since they've been pretty successful, I suppose that's no bad thing.

[Jaelle]

Oh, just wanted to add something to this thread.

A couple of nights ago in Massachusetts my daughter and young cousins were sitting around watching a re-broadcast of Reign of Fire on one of the Starz channels. I wasn't watching but I stopped for a few minutes to watch Christian Bale a little more closely in one of his scenes because some of you folks had mentioned him as a possible Bond. I don't know Bale very well, I've seen him in precious little. However, I admit that I did like him very much in Reign of Fire. I have no idea how tall he is but just from that film, he didn't look too bad as a possible Bond candidate.

[Kingdom Come]

Samuel West [haven't seen Dominic West]
Euan McGregor
Joaquin Phoenix
Ray Liotta

[crashdrive]

Originally posted by Kingdom Come
Samuel West [haven't seen Dominic West]
Euan McGregor
Joaquin Phoenix
Ray Liotta

None of the above will be considered, with the possible exception of Ewan who doesn't seem too eager to sign on to a three picture deal and is too short to play Bond. I also don't think any of the mentioned actors would be good or even suitable choices. Of course I like choices that are original, but these aren't even acceptable.