It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Maybe not on the inner character level, but maybe it's the fact that he's the first actor to introduce the character, so I think it counts as a big responsibility for him to do? Like if other actor had been the first Bond, do you think he would be as famous as what Connery brought to the role? Maybe that's the thing in it, it's an impossible task to do to bring the character to life in the beginning and Connery sold it, this was also the case with Brosnan too, to the lesser extent.
But yes, if we consider the character, yes, Connery didn't have that much meat to chew, for me about Connery, it's more on the fact of responsibility, of how things worked with him, but again, if that's the case, then should Brosnan too for how he brought Bond back to life after the 3 years absence, what Connery did in the role was to brought coolness and suaveness (he's the epitome of cool), but yes, aside from that, there's not much depth in his portrayal.
And what I also disagree in that was the inclusion of Lazenby in the playing Bond, sure he's not as experienced as the other Bond actors, but in terms of how he played the character, there's the human and vulnerability in him, if not for Lazenby, I doubt the character evolution in Bond would happened, I think Lazenby had a lot more meat to chew than Connery (given the storyline of his film), and it's also a challenge, since he's unknown and following the steps of Connery (which was really difficult), so I think those are more meatier to chew that should not be underestimated.
I don't think acting had something to do with how the character was played, some are not good actors, but their character worked (as in how their characters are written).
Agreed on Moore and Brosnan though (although Brosnan had been given a difficult task to do with introducing Bond in the modern world, I mean, if we consider Connery and his responsibility of introducing the character on the big screen, then Brosnan also had the responsibility of bringing Bond to the modern timeline after the 3 year hiatus).
So this left Moore, which for me, just playing Bond at all, no difficulties ever given to him, nor a responsibility (well, it's for the fact that people accepted him very quick, because he's already famous at the time), nor his Bond had some sort of character study or depth.
Roger Moore was easily accepted by the people at the time because he's famous and already familiar with the people, you could put any famous actor in his shoes, and would be accepted the same as Moore was.
Coming off from The Saint (to which was a hit at the time), then The Persuaders (another popular hit show), it's easy for him to be accepted by the people.
If one, for example may put Cary Grant to replace Connery, it would've been still successful, because he's popular, that's the same for Moore, no matter what the tone was.
Lazenby didn't worked because he's obviously not famous and not familiar with the people at the time, he's completely unknown (well, it could've been remedied had he continued), but Moore replacing Connery was easy, because again, he's popular, so the people already knew him and easily accepted him in the role, and it affected the box office (in short, became successful).
That's the thing, after Connery, they really needed another big star (a big name) for it to work, and they've got Roger, so it worked.
Any big star who would replace Connery at the time would've worked and successful, as long as they're really famous and popular.
Brosnan was a star too, so it was even easier for him as it had long been proved that anyone could play Bond. No sweat. All he had to do, and he did, was mix Sean and Roger's performances together. Not difficult at all.
Of course it wasn't easy for Moore to prove that Bond could be someone else or played in a different style.
I think Broccoli went with Moore for a few reasons. Whatever one thinks of his acting, he was experienced. He was different enough to Connery to stand out but could also hold his own onscreen. He had a previous onscreen presence with the British public, but wasn’t a big star so his salary wasn’t going to break the bank (even though his pay was higher than Connery’s in the early Bond films, he got paid slightly less for LALD than Connery did in DAF). And he seemed affable/had a good working relationship with the team behind Bond. Obviously all this was in stark contrast to Lazenby. And yes, the task of replacing Connery was difficult (even Moore took until TSWLM to get more unanimous critical praise that didn’t compare him to Connery).
I think for any new Bond actor it’s never easy stepping into the role. It certainly won’t be this time after Craig. That’s why casting the right man - both in terms of how they handle the character onscreen and how they are offscreen - is important.
Sure, both are big stars at the time, but Brosnan's situation was far more difficult, because of the expectations.
It's different, because one may need to introduce Bond in a modern era, after a long hiatus, the problem here lies with the tone, Bond's direction in the 90's was uncertain, and if a Bond actor could've pulled that kind of tone/direction.
It also helped that there's DAF before Moore took over, so Moore just continued it.
With Brosnan, there's a lot of challenges, reinvention of Bond, the modern era, the long hiatus, the box office disappointment of LTK, and the likes.
When Moore took over, the Franchise was not in a critical situation (not even in terms of financial), just cast a big star actor and everything would've worked, again, regardless of the tone, they could cast any big star at the time and it would've worked.
The problem in the 70's wasn't the direction or the tone, but the star, the lead, they don't have much problems at the time, except who would they cast as Bond, that's all.
There's no need to prove that the Franchise is relevant to the modern times, no need to prove an effort that could be worth of getting back their power after almost a stressful legal battles and hiatus (financially).
He's already famous, The Saint already had some films back then, he'd starred in several films before Bond or even The Saint, he'd starred with famous actresses like Elizabeth Taylor, he's famous already, already a big star.
When it comes to breaking the bank kind of thing, I think Moore was not demanding when it comes to salary, his salary in The Persuaders was not that big, Tony Curtis' was even paid more higher than him (hence, the credits went like this: Curtis+Moore).
He had a lot of Hollywood films in 50's and early 60's.
He's already a star back then, he's probably a lot more famous than Connery, if we're talking of pre-Bond career.
It depends upon the director too, if an actor had a good relationship with the director, it could've worked.
All of the Bond actors at the time had a good relationship with the directors working with them, except Lazenby and Hunt (whom obviously more of tension in their relationship because of creative differences and lack of guidance).
Although in Craig's case, there's still a creative differences which created tensions and disagreements (hence, why there are few directors that got rejected for the job - Danny Boyle, for example), because Craig didn't liked his concept, so he's rejected and this showed Craig's powerful influence in the creative department of EON.
But not compared to someone like Cary Grant. That’s what I was saying. His billing in that film you mentioned, ‘Last Time I Saw Paris’ is so low it’s a minor supporting part. His film roles before Bond, while extensive, either have him playing similar supporting roles or are more low key British/foreign films.
The Saint was relatively popular from my understanding, and it seemed to give him a dry run for his Bond, but again television was seen as a different beast to film at the time, and its audience seems to be predominantly British and not international.
It’s not accurate to say Moore was a big star. I suspect many people hearing his announcement as Bond at the time wouldn’t have known who he was, especially if they lived outside the UK. But he wasn’t unknown either by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m talking about the relationship between the actor and the producers mainly to be honest. Obviously Connery and Lazenby had their disputes in this area (Lazenby especially seems to have turned to drugs and counter culture come promotion time for OHMSS, and Connery obviously had tensions especially with Broccoli which impacted things behind the scenes). From what I understand Moore knew Cubby beforehand so was on good terms with them. Basically he was professional/reliable enough to show up on time, do the job to the best of his ability, be friendly to the rest of the cast/crew, and promote the film afterwards.
I think it’s similar with Craig. The producers wouldn’t have given him that creative input if he didn’t have a good working relationship with them and he didn’t see eye to eye with their own creative vision. The Boyle thing is another matter. That seems pretty unanimously to be due to problems with the script that all the producers felt, and the proposed solution (different writers in this case) was rejected by Boyle.
Yes no expectations at all after Connery made it such a massive global hit and was the one single living embodiment of 007 in the world's eyes 8-|
And Brosnan just continued what Connery & Moore had established. He literally copied them: he admits it.
Look: I'm not saying Brosnan had an easy job, clearly he didn't- none of them did. But to pretend he had it hard while Moore had it easy is silly.
Well said.
Whoever plays Bond doesn't have it easy.
Roger Moore was the first Bond to prove that the series could continue without Sean Connery.
He made the character his own. That deserves some credit.
That’s something EON should be careful with, in future actors. Because of Craig, we may have gotten Sam Mendes, but we also got Marc Forster. And if EON is going with a multi story arc again, it shouldn’t be just planned for the end. Have certain characters planned for certain times. In a way that’s what Kim Sherwood is doing with her Double 0 trilogy. I’d love to see certain characters return from the books and movies, but they should be planned better to avoid a Spectre situation again. They really wrote themselves into a corner.
Why do you say that? If anything they got Forster because they'd met him while they were making DAD, as he'd come along due to directing Halle Berry in Monster's Ball.
He said he wasn’t a Bond fan and it kind of shows. Writer’s strike, not enough time to edit, or not, he and Craig deserve some blame. EON should have picked someone who was more of a fan, not just of CR06.
Forster's a weird Bond director anyway. I think under the circumstances he deserves credit (a lot of the decisions he made regarding the script, which was obviously being written/changed under very short time deadlines, were effective) but he also came up with some very strange ideas too. I don't know, perhaps he wasn't experienced enough with action films and compensated with the odd 'fast as a bullet' concept. One can tell during some of the scenes he directed (so not sequences directed by the Second Unit team) that there isn't quite enough coverage for the edit which doesn't help matters, and the film feels a bit breathless in a way the other Craig era films don't.
Why is his not being a fan Craig's fault? I'm a bit baffled. What's it got to do with Craig?
I think QoS was something of old versus new Bond production coming against itself. Are the directors gun for hires who can do it all and get it in on budget and on time? Or do we want more of an artist with interpretation and more reliance on the team to develop some of the other elements? They clearly went the more emotional method with artier directors, but I think the producers didn't quite know what to ask of Forster when they hired him.
Existed. The absolute devil.
Did nowt wrong as far as I'm concerned. Craig may be the reason that Forster wanted to direct QOS, but that's a good thing - I love that film.
It was the start of EON giving Daniel Craig too much creative control. Too much for his second film. Already more creative control that Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan never got. Plus, Marc Forster was like Martin Campbell directing Green Lantern: he was out of his style of filmmaking. And this is coming from someone who likes both films, honestly. The writer's strike and studio interference respectively, may have hurt their movies. I give them points for doing well for what they had to work with in terms of writing. They should have thought a bit more about the project, same with the people in charge. Marc Forster was way too artsy for Bond, EON needs to stay away from directors like him for awhile.
As I have said before, I think adapting Forever and a Day is the way to introduce the next Bond. Set it in modern day, keep it faithful (its plots could be used well in today's world), and it's standalone. With the option to build over in its sequels. Have Anthony Horowitz as a guide, with the story and the overall screenplay.
Forever and a Day being adapted faithfully wouldn't be that.
Joanne "Sixtine / Madame 16" Brochet could be an influence on Bond. I think that EON will take a break from forming a long arc of vengeance partially from the first Bond Woman's influence.
I hope so. EON has those as well as always doing just original stories.
But he didn't choose Forster: like I said, Broccoli and Wilson had met him on the film before Craig even joined up as Bond.
How should they have thought a bit more about it? They had writers, whose job it was to think about and write it, and then they didn't have any writers.
My mistake. I was just saying how EON can learn from the past, to better prepare for Bond's future.
Forster excelled in the dramatic scenes, perhaps more than Mendes.
It's in the action scenes where he flailed.
QoS is not unlike SP in that it could have been a great Bond film. I'd rather Eon continue taking chances with directors, even if they're not totally successful, than to give us copies of cookie-cutter Bond films of the past.
But why do you think it was personally down to Craig that Forster got hired? You keep ignoring the question.
Daniel Craig was a big fan of Marc Forster and his films. I think hiring him was EON's way of saying thank you to DC for the success of CR. It feels like this was DC's first way of pushing for more creative control. Mixture of fact from Bond Books and personal speculation.
So a complete guess, then. You can’t state it as fact that we have him ‘to blame’ when ‘I think’ and ‘it feels like’.
No need to apologize. I was pointing out how the thread went 2-3 days without any activity before today.
Daniel Craig kicked my dog. That’s why I don’t like him.