› ›

How would you feel about a 'one and done' Bond actor

TroyTroy
edited July 2016 in Bond 26 & Beyond Posts: 343
Reading one of the other threads reminded me that the first film of an actors era is often the best - presumably because they are most committed and have a fresh take on the character

As we appear to be moving towards a four year cycle, why not have a new actor for each film, or perhaps maximum of two.

This would keep down salary costs, enable actors to be the optimum age, keep the movies fresh, and make each film genuinely interesting and not predictable.
«134

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    George Lazenby agrees.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    I disagree. I like seeing actors play the role more than once. Sure there might be some one hit wonders but it just deludes the character and franchise really.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    One film per actor will eventually hurt the film franchise. The literary Bond has never been the same since Raymond Benson left. One book per author isn't really giving the series in literature importance or a boost. One film per actor will eventually result in direct-to-video feature films to be produced.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I don't see much merit in this idea at all.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    It's never going to happen. Can you honestly see the producers going through the lengthy casting process for the next Bond with every film? Not that they can't do more, or less, but I think that 4 films (on a 2 or 3 year cycle) is a good number from any actor.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree with the OP that the first performance (or perhaps the first two or three) are among the best of most of the actors. I'd be happy with 4 as a limit going forward quite frankly.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited April 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Well, if the years won't separate the entries with much gaps in between each of them, I can see five or six films being a reasonable count for an actor. And by the gap, I mean two years. If it hits three, then yes, the amount of films per actor has to go down to four at most.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    One film? Nah, that's not enough.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    The only way I could see this happening is if they did a one-off period piece; the problem though would be if it was a huge success then there would no doubt be another, and another...
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Sure the record of most actors Bond films were considered best but there could be one day where someone's first Bond film sucks.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    3 is too little. 5 is the perfect number. For me anyway.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That's why proposed a limit of three a ways back. The only one of my Top Twelve that would be dropped would have been THUNDERBALL.
    That's why I proposed four above. I was wrestling with it before posting and would have actually preferred three, but I couldn't bear to lose something like TB. A work of art.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That's why I proposed a limit of three a ways back (obviously, each actor's longevity varies, this was simply an academic exercise) The only one of my Top Twelve that would be dropped would have been THUNDERBALL.

    And for a lot of people not even that. Not me, certainly. But I quite appreciate FYEO and OP, so... Hmm.

    Anyway, a change of actor has always been foretold by a poorly received Bond film, not a well received one (aside from YOLT).

    OHMSS - badly received by public at the time, most people didn't like the actor.

    DAF - well, Connery was only coming back one more time but this is generally seen as the weakest of Connery's era.

    AVTAK - Moore was declared way too old.

    LTK - too dark for a Bond film at the time, public never really warmed to Dalton.

    DAD - eeuuuugh...

    SP - Maybe? ??????
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    A pretty bizarre idea, this. The whole point of keeping an actor in the part for several films is that he can grow and provide a little continuity over he span of a few films. I'm none too pleased with Lazenby dropping out after merely one film, or Dalton after only two. Both actors had more Bond potential than people seem to realise. Lazenby needed at least a Goldfinger to shine and Dalton, seeing how well he already did in TLD, arguably better even than Connery in DN, he could have been absolutely fabulous in a 3rd and 4th Bond.

    I know it's usually more 'exciting' to see the new guy wear the tuxedo, but IMO Sean, Roger and even Pierce didn't give us their best performance in DN, LALD and GE respectively. (I say "even Pierce" because GE is perhaps my favourite Bond film.) Yes, costs go up, which is why Disney needs to dig deeper and deeper every time they want Robert Downey Jr back as Iron Man. But hey, it works. Same with Bond. I bet you a large majority of casual and die hard Bond fans demands Craig back for Bond 25. Most of them and us would have been livid had they recast the role for QoS (especially seeing how much of a "saving grace" Craig is to that film.)

    So I find it weird to imagine that if we get another 10 Bond films, it'd be with 10 different actors. That doesn't say "smart move" in my opinion. Rather, that reads like "franchise in big trouble". Look at certain other franchises in trouble:

    - Jack Ryan: Baldwin (1), Ford (2), Affleck (1), Pine (1), ?
    - Terminator: Furlong (1), Stahl (1), Bale (1), Clarke (1), ?
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I know it's usually more 'exciting' to see the new guy wear the tuxedo, but IMO Sean, Roger and even Pierce didn't give us their best performance in DN, LALD and GE respectively. (I say "even Pierce" because GE is perhaps my favourite Bond film.) Yes, costs go up, which is why Disney needs to dig deeper and deeper every time they want Robert Downey Jr back as Iron Man. But hey, it works. Same with Bond. I bet you a large majority of casual and die hard Bond fans demands Craig back for Bond 25. Most of them and us would have been livid had they recast the role for QoS (especially seeing how much of a "saving grace" Craig is to that film.)

    I don't see anything wrong with Connery's performance in DN, Moore's performance in LALD, or Brosnan's performance in GE. They are most certainly far from their worst, respectively (DAF, TMWTGG or AVTAK, TWINE). Brosnan's performance in GE is not far from his best performance in TND, in my opinion.

    Well we'd have all hated it if Craig were recast in QOS. Definitely. If he is recast now that is a different matter.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    I'm not saying that Connery, Moore and Brosnan were bad in their first Bond films. I'm saying they weren't peaking yet. IMO, Connery peaked in FRWL - GF, Moore peaked in TSWLM - MR and Brosnan peaked in TND. Again, IM humblest of Os.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    Posts: 1,817
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I'm not saying that Connery, Moore and Brosnan were bad in their first Bond films. I'm saying they weren't peaking yet. IMO, Connery peaked in FRWL - GF, Moore peaked in TSWLM - MR and Brosnan peaked in TND. Again, IM humblest of Os.

    Well I would agree about peaking, actually.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,130
    Noo, I would not like this idea of just one film for each actor.
    You can't judge their portrayal the right way, The Bond actors grow in the role and get better each time till they get to their third and with their fourth its finally a Bond we love and we are used to.

    So i guess the proper number of films is 4 or 5.

    6 is too much and we both get tired. The fans and the actor who is playing Bond i think the best is 4 films.

    and with 1 or two films the general audiences don't get to know the actor.

    I bet for the causal movie goers who enjoy Bond but are not huge fans there are only 4 actors who portrayed Bond: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brsonan and Daniel Craig.


  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    I don't care for the idea at all. I tend to really enjoy the actor's second films, aside from TMWTGG. I like how they usually gear those films towards the strengths the actors displayed in their debut. Of the five actors who have had a second film, I think I'd rate the second film the best for three of them (Connery, Dalton, and Craig).

    I really don't think that there should be a set number of films for any actor coming in. The focus should be on making really good films each and every time out. If they can keep that run going past five or six, or further, and everyone's still happy doing what they're doing, then by all means continue on.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited April 2016 Posts: 6,432
    The broader audience needs to identify with a character over a period of time. Changing Bond every one or two films would confuse the audience, tone shifts and characteristic changes would be too frequent and alienate viewers.
  • IncompetentHenchmanIncompetentHenchman
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,817
    If there is a magic number, the magic number should probably be 3. This is so that the actor never has a fourth film. The fourth film is usually considered one of the actor's lesser feats by the wider public. (DAD, MR, SP, retrospectively TB). At that point they just try to become "bigger" and "better" to the point that they overwhelm themselves.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Maybe the lesson should be for EON to pull back and do a FYEO-type film without having had to go the MR route first.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Be interesting to see if the producers go more grounded after the lavish Spectre.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Perhaps it should be a case of three only (which given the lengthening time frames is probably as much as we'll get anyway) as every actor's 4th film, despite all their performances being pretty good in it, for some reason becomes a bit of a bloated juggernaut of excess.
  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    Posts: 337
    They should do at least 3. One is completely unrealistic and will never happen, and the idea of a new Bond actor cropping up every two or three years is outrageous.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    Birdleson wrote: »
    One did happen.

    Yeah, and it still gets me angry.
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Perhaps it should be a case of three only (which given the lengthening time frames is probably as much as we'll get anyway) as every actor's 4th film, despite all their performances being pretty good in it, for some reason becomes a bit of a bloated juggernaut of excess.

    TB, MR, DAD, SP

    I think TB was the result of the GF hype and of Cubby and Harry still going at it like mad. I honestly believe they could have used a two year pause from GF before going any further. It might have refuelled Connery too.

    Say what you want about MR, I think Moore was great in it. He had found his Bond IMO, or rather, Bond had found his Roger. Either way, I like what he's giving in the film, despite the outrageous and excessive stuff the film delivers.

    DAD should never have happened. Never!

    I have not a lot of bad things to say about SP to be honest and certainly not about Craig in it.

  • stun_harvestingstun_harvesting
    edited April 2016 Posts: 337
    Birdleson wrote: »
    One did happen.

    Obviously @Troy meant in the future, because we can't change the past. I'm saying that a person playing Bond only once in the future is pretty damn unrealistic and will only happen if they had a major fallout with the rest of the crew (and that shouldn't happen). Technically, Lazenby did have that, but he also had advice to quit the role and believed that the franchise would expire in due time, which, well, it didn't. A modern Bond actor would never believe that. I can't see any future Bonds departing after just one attempt.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think they can do a 'one off' with one actor if it's a period piece or some other unique approach.

    Personally I would love Christian Bale to take a crack at it, for one or two films, assuming they had a decent script and wanted to take it on a tangent for a couple before coming back to reality.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    A silly idea to be honest, and no offense intended. It is hard enough to appoint a new Bond for 3 to 5 movies depending upon movie release gaps?
  • TroyTroy
    Posts: 343
    Limiting to one film is, probably, a little harsh - although it left Lazenby with a great reputation. But 3 seems to be a popular limit, and may be few enough not to typecast the actor
Sign In or Register to comment.