|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Dec 7, 2008 1:37:35 GMT -5
Brosnan was unconvincing. Even Moore could display more intensity. I mean come on, Pierce Brosnan = "tough guy"?  Maybe of I was Deanna Brayton and Kimberly Last I would find him "tough".  Now HERE'S a tough guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Dec 7, 2008 6:33:44 GMT -5
Brosnan was unconvincing. Even Moore could display more intensity. I mean come on, Pierce Brosnan = "tough guy"?  I'm campaigning for the hairy chested Bond to return.  I think Pierce is quite tough. He is 6 feet 2. I remember reading an article where he met his father for the first time in ages and thought he would see a tall man - but in fact his father was quite short. Daniel Craig is only 5 feet 9 - and has to wear shoe lifts! That's not very tough. But short people can be tough - the Joe Pesci mafia characters for example. |
|
|
|
Post by adam on Dec 7, 2008 7:20:15 GMT -5
Not a very flattering picture of Pierce there. No doubt taken during his Remington Steel days. He played it tougher in 1986's 'The Forth Protocol'. Killing several people in cold blood & looking convincing as a Russian spy. This tougher performance helped convince Cubby Brocoli that Pierce was his man. However we all know what happened in 86.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Dec 7, 2008 11:02:03 GMT -5
Not a very flattering picture of Pierce there. No doubt taken during his Remington Steel days. He played it tougher in 1986's 'The Forth Protocol'. Killing several people in cold blood & looking convincing as a Russian spy. This tougher performance helped convince Cubby Brocoli that Pierce was his man. However we all know what happened in 86. And that photo is not in context to a screen role. In fact, I know the photographer who took that photo, and I believe it was done for a magazine spread to show Brosnan as a so-called "hunk." So he was made up that way, the pose, the hairstyle, etc. But as you point out, Brosnan had the versatility to take on tougher roles. Yeah, I remember The Fourth Protocol. He was a superb ruthless agent and he smoldered on the screen. My wife and I were watching that movie the other day and we remembered seeing it in the theater back in '87. The audience just gasped whenever Brosnan's KGB assassin went on a killing. Here's my favorite scene in the film, and looking at it now I can see a Bondian flair to it.  John Glen himself thought Brosnan would make an excellent Bond back in 1986-87. This is what he had to say when they were auditioning him for the role: "I directed Pierce in my favorite scenes from Dr No and from Russia With Love and discovered that he could handle himself very well in the punch-ups. If I had one reservation about him, it was that although he was in his mid-thirties, he looked much younger. Cubby, Michael and Barbara were as impressed as I was, so we sent the test footage to MGM/UA, who gave us the the thumbs up. As far as we were concerned, Pierce had got the job, and we invited himt o a celebratory lunch at the White Elephant."This is from his auto-biography For My Eyes Only (pg. 175). Interesting note about the youthful-looking Brosnan. That would've been an ideal time to make a film about a young James Bond just starting on his 007 career--an actor who actually looks youthful, unlike Craig who resembles a 60-year old obsessed with weight-lifting to compensate for his shortness. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by adam on Dec 7, 2008 12:40:36 GMT -5
'The Forth Protocol' was a very good 'Day of the Jackal' type film. It did'nt do great business and Michael Caine said he thought it was too wordy. However Brosnan was a top Russian spy and had to keep a low profile. So he could charge around blowing things up.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam on Dec 7, 2008 12:42:10 GMT -5
Sorry my last post should have said 'COULD'NT'.
|
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Dec 7, 2008 13:54:10 GMT -5
Craig did an interview with Jimmy Kimmel a few weeks ago, and I happened to catch the ending. It actually took a moment for me to realize who Craig was. He looked surprisingly small and frail sitting there with his broken arm, especially in comparison to the host. Now, Jimmy Kimmel is not a tough man. He gives off the impression of a doughy fanboy who has probably never had a fight in his life. But a quick google reveals that he stands around 6'1", which you'd never suspect from watching him on tv. When this guy is capable of making you look small, you've got problems. In other words, it's all in how the actor is portrayed onscreen. It's true that Brosnan looked very young and slim in GE, but he grew into the role nicely. He was believable in the action scenes and could've easily handled more physicality if the producers had chosen that direction. It's easy to forget by watching their films, but Brosnan and Dalton are both fairly big guys in real life. You don't tend to notice it in their Bond films, because their 007 was not trying to be a generic action hero. They focused more on wearing a tux and carrying themselves as a gentleman spy. In a real life matchup between all the Bond actors, I'm not even sure Craig would make the weight class.  |
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Dec 7, 2008 19:43:45 GMT -5
Here is picture of Henry Cavill for Stocksilvian - maybe you could add it to your Risco signature to make a poster!  |
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Dec 7, 2008 19:46:07 GMT -5
 "Leave Bond to the professionals. It's a man's world!" |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Sterling on Dec 9, 2008 13:36:07 GMT -5
1985 - TLD starring Sir Roger, acknowledgment of Bond's age, flying carpet scene included 1987 - Dalton's debut in AVTAK Interesting switch. Any particular reason? Yes, indeed. As much as I like AVTAK I think that, paradoxically, out of seven Roger Moore Bond films it’s one of the least acknowledging that Bond is a pro, let alone he’s aged. Probably mainly because of that Sir Roger is so often considered to be too old in it. TLD on the other hand (its script to be exact) just call for older Bond. I’ve always been under the impression that TLD script was being written with Moore in mind. There are so many nuances in it which didn’t work on screen due to Dalton’s age and appearance. To begin with the PTS – it would have been even more interesting if seen as a sort of evaluation for Bond. Is he still as good as he used to be, is he at the same level as the (younger) rest of the 00 section? Well, we’ll see after this war game – that seems to be M’s thinking. And hell, of course he is! Than we have scenes in Bratislava. Bond is so calm and relaxed and have not much respect for all the regulations as opposed to Saunders, because he’s seasoned pro and have much more experience in the field than the latter. In the film, where both actors are in similar age, that didn’t really show. Let’s go on. Koskov knew Bond’s reputation and wanted his assistance in his defection, because Bond has been so long in the business that in certain circles he’s famous as the best British spy. It makes more sense and is more realistic if we have older Bond actor. Another thing is romance between Bond and Kara. Key point here is to create an uncertainty if she would eventually fall for him or not. The whole Vienna sequence where she gradually discovers that Bond is someone more for her than only Georgi's friend would have been more understandable and convincing with the older Bond who wouldn't have made such an impression by his looks on their first meeting. In addition there are many funny moments in the film that, considering his comedic talent, Sir Roger would have handled better than Dalton (you just can’t drive an Aston Martin equipped with every possible refinement or go down the slope in the cello case and still be deadly serious). Dalton in such a scenes looks little out of place. So he is in the scene when Bond changed the brand of champagne to Bollinger R.D. as this proposed by M “was questionable”. Sir Roger and his “aristocratic” Bond would have been much more believable in it. Oddly enough, AVTAK seems to be darker and more serious film than TLD, hence my opinion that as well as the latter would have been better with Moore in the saddle, the first would have suited Dalton better. |
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Dec 9, 2008 14:15:51 GMT -5
Those are some very good points.
I've always thought Bond should've been portrayed a little older in AVTAK. It would've provided a nice balance, since Zorin represented a newer, younger threat (ie. computers; genetic engineering, etc).
Instead, they forced Moore through some extremely physical stunts, which were not suited to an actor his age (ie. snowboarding; steeplechase; Golden Gate Bridge; etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by adam on Dec 9, 2008 15:00:58 GMT -5
Interesting points. I think whether Moore starred in AVTAK or TLD he would have looked too old. He only just got away with it in O. He lost weight after that but that just made him look gaunt. I can't beleive TLD was written with Moore in mind. Nearly every review of AVTAK mentioned Moore's age and appearance. Another Bond film would have had made him and Bond a laughing stock. I read that Cubby Brocoli choose oscar winner 'Christopher Walken' as a tribute to Moore as it was his final film. Moore did the press junket for AVTAK and then quickly annonced his retirement.
The physical stunts in AVTAK would have better suited Dalton. The two fist fights in the film, firstly with Patrick Macnee and then with Tanya Roberts are two of the worst in the seris. Dalton could have improved them. Dalton may have looked better in the Golden Gate climax as well. Dalton would have been enthusiastic and want to stamp his own personality on the character. This may have improved the film. I suspect Moore just did what he was told in his final appearance. The steeplechase and snowboarding scenes were probably done exlusivly by stuntmen.
The recent 'Indiana Jones' film makes a point that Jones is now old. If the script for AVTAK had made a big thing about Moores age, it could have worked. This would include getting rid of Tanya Roberts and Fiona Fullerton and putting in older women. Patrick Macnee could also be disposed of for a young inexperienced man who would look up to Moore. If TLD had been made in 1985 insted, an older leading lady would have to hired.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stockslivevan on Dec 9, 2008 16:57:43 GMT -5
Moore was never written in mind for TLD, that's just a myth. After filming was finished, Moore officially announced that it was his last film. The Inside doc for TLD on the DVD makes that clear with Michael G. Wilson stating that while they wrote TLD they still didn't have a Bond actor set in, so he and Richard Maibaum decided to write it more straightforward and less campy, hence why aspects which are labeled "Moore-esque" are rather quick and brushed off or entirely deleted such as the flying carpet. The fact that the Bond Begins concept was brought up clearly suggests they were going to go with someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Dec 9, 2008 17:05:25 GMT -5
The recent 'Indiana Jones' film makes a point that Jones is now old. Harrison Ford really didn't get enough credit for the amount of physical stunts he performed in that movie. It's easy to forget that he was 65-years-old(!) at the time of filming. I think everyone (myself included) just assumed it was achieved with cgi and stuntmen. But this theory is pretty thoroughly debunked on the dvd's extensive "making of" doc. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Sterling on Dec 9, 2008 17:09:33 GMT -5
I know that I'm a hard-core fan (in minority even among other Moore fans) but I wouldn't mind Sir Rog starring in TLD even after AVTAK. Actually I think that in 1987 he looked better than in 1985 (check "James Bond Happy Aniversary" documentary on TLD dvd extras). This film had great potential which, as far as I'm concerned, wasn't fully utilised due to reasons mentioned above.
As for AVTAK, I immensely enjoy as it is now and I don't suppose it would have been better as a film if Dalton had been in it. But I do believe that it would have been better debut for Dalton as Bond than TLD. I respect Dalton's dedication to the literary Bond and clearly he was the closest to the Fleming vision, yet in the kind of film that TLD was that approach just didn't work. It could have worked, though in the kind of film AVTAK was (in fact not very different in tone from LTK, where serious Bond worked quite well)
|
|
I think Pierce is quite tough. He is 6 feet 2. I remember reading an article where he met his father for the first time in ages and thought he would see a tall man - but in fact his father was quite short.
