›

Last Bond Movie You Watched

1…280281283285286…332

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I never understood the fervour for seeing Dalton in GE. For me Brosnan is the perfect fit. The film was going for "cool" and modern, and Brosnan delivered that better than Dalton ever could have at the time. He just seemed the man for the moment (Brosnan).

    For me LTK is more modern than GE which seems very dated then and now. I guess the fervour as you call it was because Dalton very nearly did it (Writer Michael France has claimed it was scripted with Dalton in mind!)
    And for .me Dalton would have brought it to life as its a very bland entry in the series!

    For me LTK does not look or feel modern IMO. The design of everything was so cheap, and Goldeneye was cheap too, but they gave it style which LTK doesn't have. Also the pacing is much improved, so I guess they were looking for a man of the times, and by '95 Dalton was not that. Brosnan still had a reputation as a rising star and played up to the public opinion that he should be Bond.

    I think today we are in a opposite position, where most people are indifferent or tired of the Craig approach and they want something closer to what Brosnan brought with a fresh approach.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I never understood the fervour for seeing Dalton in GE. For me Brosnan is the perfect fit. The film was going for "cool" and modern, and Brosnan delivered that better than Dalton ever could have at the time. He just seemed the man for the moment (Brosnan).

    For me LTK is more modern than GE which seems very dated then and now. I guess the fervour as you call it was because Dalton very nearly did it (Writer Michael France has claimed it was scripted with Dalton in mind!)
    And for .me Dalton would have brought it to life as its a very bland entry in the series!

    For me LTK does not look or feel modern IMO. The design of everything was so cheap, and Goldeneye was cheap too, but they gave it style which LTK doesn't have. Also the pacing is much improved, so I guess they were looking for a man of the times, and by '95 Dalton was not that. Brosnan still had a reputation as a rising star and played up to the public opinion that he should be Bond.

    I think today we are in a opposite position, where most people are indifferent or tired of the Craig approach and they want something closer to what Brosnan brought with a fresh approach.
    I agree. GE has a lot of style and Brosnan personified the Bond icon better than anyone since the 70s. I actually think the film gives off an Adam vibe in places (there's a cold industrial aesthetic to some of the sets, which was missing during Glen's run).

    I remember the enthusiasm for a new man being infectious in 1995, and Brosnan captured the visual essence of the icon, particularly in that first teaser trailer.

    At least personally, I am more than ready for that again after this recent experimental detour, and I don't believe I'm alone.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    00Agent wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I never understood the fervour for seeing Dalton in GE. For me Brosnan is the perfect fit. The film was going for "cool" and modern, and Brosnan delivered that better than Dalton ever could have at the time. He just seemed the man for the moment (Brosnan).
    +1.

    GE with Dalton would've been awful.

    +2 Dalton would have seemed completely out of place in GE.
    Dalton, as much as I love him, can’t deliver one liners the way Connery, Moore and Brosnan do. Secondly, anyone who has read Michael France’s initial script written with Dalton in mind wouldn’t dare to think GE would’ve been better with Dalton.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I never understood the fervour for seeing Dalton in GE. For me Brosnan is the perfect fit. The film was going for "cool" and modern, and Brosnan delivered that better than Dalton ever could have at the time. He just seemed the man for the moment (Brosnan).
    +1.

    GE with Dalton would've been awful.

    +2 Dalton would have seemed completely out of place in GE.
    Dalton, as much as I love him, can’t deliver one liners the way Connery, Moore and Brosnan do. Secondly, anyone who has read Michael France’s initial script written with Dalton in mind wouldn’t dare to think GE would’ve been better with Dalton.

    +3 easily.

  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Another great viewing of The Living Daylights last night. One of my fondest Bond films.

    Love the cold war plot and Dalton's performance.

    The PTS and climax are my favourite of the series. Bond clinging to the net hanging out the back of the plane is one of the best stunts of the films.

    Also love the character of Kara. An innocent caught up in a world beyond her comprehension yet she rallies through by the end.

    So many great scenes. The sequence at the safehouse, Bond confronting Pushkin, the Aston chase, Koskovs fake defection, the battle in Afghanistan and the final confrontation with Whitaker.

    Also has one of Barry's best scores.

    A proper Bond film all round.

    Agreed. Love the film, love the score. Was so happy coming back from the first showing in the cinema, thinking, ah, we've got Bond back at last!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,198
    I can imagine a slightly different verison of GE starring Dalton but GE is fine as it is. I think that the whole change in the cast, especially M would not have worked with Dalton still in the role. Bond's relationship with Alec which leads us back into Bond's past works better with a new actor. Furthermore, LTK already focused on the relationship between Bond and a fellow agent. Don't go that route twice with one Bond actor.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Trevelyan was supposed to be 60-something years old, an-already-traitor to MI6 when introduced, had two other 00s killed during a flashback mission headed by Bond in Dalton's version. The only thing that remained the same in the final film was the climax. Otherwise, it was supposed to be an entirely different film with brand new characters: No Zukovsky, no Ourumov, no Natalya, no Boris.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Trevelyan was supposed to be 60-something years old, an-already-traitor to MI6 when introduced, had two other 00s killed during a flashback mission headed by Bond in Dalton's version. The only thing that remained the same in the final film was the climax. Otherwise, it was supposed to be an entirely different film with brand new characters: No Zukovsky, no Ourumov, no Natalya, no Boris.

    Do you know who the 60 year old Alec was going to be played by,actor wise ?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2018 Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Trevelyan was supposed to be 60-something years old, an-already-traitor to MI6 when introduced, had two other 00s killed during a flashback mission headed by Bond in Dalton's version. The only thing that remained the same in the final film was the climax. Otherwise, it was supposed to be an entirely different film with brand new characters: No Zukovsky, no Ourumov, no Natalya, no Boris.
    Do you know who the 60 year old Alec was going to be played by,actor wise ?
    He was called Augustus Trevelyan in that version, and word is that Alan Rickman was eyed for the role, even though when I read it, I imagined Anthony Hopkins in the role. I think he also was considered.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Trevelyan was supposed to be 60-something years old, an-already-traitor to MI6 when introduced, had two other 00s killed during a flashback mission headed by Bond in Dalton's version. The only thing that remained the same in the final film was the climax. Otherwise, it was supposed to be an entirely different film with brand new characters: No Zukovsky, no Ourumov, no Natalya, no Boris.
    Do you know who the 60 year old Alec was going to be played by,actor wise ?
    He was called Augustus Trevelyan in that version, and word is that Alan Rickman was eyed for the role, even though when I read it, I imagined Anthony Hopkins in the role. I think he also was considered.

    Interesting...its a big loss that the Bond series never had Rickman in some capacity in a Bond film.

    So Hopkins was considered twice for GE AND TND...interesting.

  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    Yeah. I'd be jumping up and down all day if they got Hopkins to play the villain.

    By the way, we need a villain called Augustus.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Trevelyan was supposed to be 60-something years old, an-already-traitor to MI6 when introduced, had two other 00s killed during a flashback mission headed by Bond in Dalton's version. The only thing that remained the same in the final film was the climax. Otherwise, it was supposed to be an entirely different film with brand new characters: No Zukovsky, no Ourumov, no Natalya, no Boris.
    Do you know who the 60 year old Alec was going to be played by,actor wise ?
    He was called Augustus Trevelyan in that version, and word is that Alan Rickman was eyed for the role, even though when I read it, I imagined Anthony Hopkins in the role. I think he also was considered.
    Interesting...its a big loss that the Bond series never had Rickman in some capacity in a Bond film.

    So Hopkins was considered twice for GE AND TND...interesting.
    Yep! TND's initial script was also very different, and the villain was definitely written with Hopkins in mind there. Cold, calculating, charismatic and witty, and was called Sir Elliot Harmsway.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,624
    Would have been a whole lot more interesting than Pryces panto villain.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Would have been a whole lot more interesting than Pryces panto villain.
    I'm inclined to agree. I actually prefer the original script over the final film (which I thoroughly love).
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,624
    Like Jonathan Pryce as an actor (can't wait to see him as Don Quixote in Terry Gilliam long planned film) but hated him in TND, poorly written and hamming it up all over the place!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Cold, calculating, charismatic and witty, and was called Sir Elliot Harmsway.
    Oh, I like that.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Would have been a whole lot more interesting than Pryces panto villain.
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Would have been a whole lot more interesting than Pryces panto villain.
    I'm inclined to agree. I actually prefer the original script over the final film (which I thoroughly love).

    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited March 2018 Posts: 15,423
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
    I actually like Pryce's Carver, so I don't mind him at all. He's a comic relief more than a villain. As a villain though, Sir Elliot all the Harmsway. ;)
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
    I actually like Pryce's Carver, so I don't mind him at all. He's a comic relief more than a villain. As a villain though, Sir Elliot all the Harmsway. ;)

    Hopkins would be a good villain to face off CraigBond in B25..he's still big,with a powerful presence.
    And Sir Harmsway could then be used properly,in a standalone film.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
    I actually like Pryce's Carver, so I don't mind him at all. He's a comic relief more than a villain. As a villain though, Sir Elliot all the Harmsway. ;)
    Hopkins would be a good villain to face off CraigBond in B25..he's still big,with a powerful presence.
    And Sir Harmsway could then be used properly,in a standalone film.
    Come to think of it, he would've been a great Blofeld. Hopkins, that is.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
    I actually like Pryce's Carver, so I don't mind him at all. He's a comic relief more than a villain. As a villain though, Sir Elliot all the Harmsway. ;)
    Hopkins would be a good villain to face off CraigBond in B25..he's still big,with a powerful presence.
    And Sir Harmsway could then be used properly,in a standalone film.
    Come to think of it, he would've been a great Blofeld. Hopkins, that is.

    Indeed...cold,calculating,menacing,powerful..and that voice...

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
    I actually like Pryce's Carver, so I don't mind him at all. He's a comic relief more than a villain. As a villain though, Sir Elliot all the Harmsway. ;)
    Hopkins would be a good villain to face off CraigBond in B25..he's still big,with a powerful presence.
    And Sir Harmsway could then be used properly,in a standalone film.
    Come to think of it, he would've been a great Blofeld. Hopkins, that is.
    Indeed...cold,calculating,menacing,powerful..and that voice...
    He's certainly a charismatic sod. :D

    I'm actually glad he was cast as Don Diego instead of Connery in The Mask of Zorro. He was abnormally charismatic in that film, I couldn't help but watch how awesome he is. The way he behaves, the way he talks, the way he acts... Need I go on? :D
  • mattjoesmattjoes Pay more attention to your chef
    Posts: 7,058
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Don't you realize how absurd your position is? :D
    I actually like Pryce's Carver, so I don't mind him at all. He's a comic relief more than a villain. As a villain though, Sir Elliot all the Harmsway. ;)
    Agreed, Carver is like a cartoon bad guy. And as much as I'd love to have already seen Hopkins playing a villain, I wouldn't have wanted him to if that would've meant missing out on Jonathan Pryce's wonderful performance.

    I'm curious about the TND script draft you mention, though. Will have to give it a read.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Come to think of it, none of the villains in the last three Brosnan films had any real element of danger to them. Carver, Renard and the goofy, snarling Graves were all a bit pantomine.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I have to disagree about Graves. I thought he was terrific, even though he was a larger than life comic book villain. Renard was just unmemorable.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I liked Graves too (really disliked Renard), but I didn't find him especially threatening. Same goes for Carver.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited March 2018 Posts: 19,339
    Renard was useless...all that build up about 009 putting a bullet in his brain and he will become stronger and smarter until it kills him,and where in the film does it show this ?

    I like TWINE but that character was naff compared to the brilliant Electra.
    (And Carlyle was seriously miscast,probably because of the hype of the Full Monty in 1997).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed. Elektra was the main villain in my opinion.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Agreed. Elektra was the main villain in my opinion.

    Yes for sure...no comparison.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Agreed. Elektra was the main villain in my opinion.
    Yes for sure...no comparison.
    If I recall correctly, Renard was to be taller, and a muscular giant in the first draft. At least I remember reading it that way, and had a scar on his face similar to that of Blofeld's. But, much of the lines were the same.
Sign In or Register to comment.