›

The Man who Should Have

13

Comments

  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    I look at two Bond actors who actually blew it.
    GEORGE LAZENBY
    PIERCE BROSNAN

    George had some big shoes to fill after Connery had so established the screen persona of 007. He had one of the most engaging source novels and that EON team behind him. What should have been a great success story in the history of filmmaking, he ends up as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
    His arrogance and bad business decision to turn down EON's offer of a seven picture deal leaves many thespians scratching their heads. Me, I would have not taken seven pictures, I would have done four. He could have made audiences forget about Sean had he carried bond into the seventies. He had that Barry score, Binder's beautiful titles, a great leading lady, good cinematography, Peter Hunt, and Richard Maibaum's script. (Maibaum himself has said that the OHMSS screenplay was the best he'd ever done for a Bond picture.) George's one film has attained a cult status. Yet he choose to walk away. Fool.

    Brosnan, unlike Lazenby was welcomed with open arms by an adoring (and Bond starved)public. The veteran EON team was gone. Barry basically retired, Maibaum out, Binder was dead, Cubby was in poor health, a bunch of new directors who had not earned any 007 chops were now calling the shots. Brosnan had four films to get it right and he fell flat. Like a cross between Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm and Bride of Frankenstein. This miserable creature stumbled into theaters and fell flat on it's ugly face.

    Oh, what could have been. Lazenby had so much going for him, acted in a great film and then walked away and his tale is a woeful one. Brosnan was the peoples choice and his films fall flat. He was finally released after EON decided to reboot with a younger and new actor. Adieu Pierce.

    Agreed on Lazenby, but you lost me when you said Brosnan's films "fell flat"... they didn't.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    I look at two Bond actors who actually blew it.
    GEORGE LAZENBY
    PIERCE BROSNAN

    George had some big shoes to fill after Connery had so established the screen persona of 007. He had one of the most engaging source novels and that EON team behind him. What should have been a great success story in the history of filmmaking, he ends up as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
    His arrogance and bad business decision to turn down EON's offer of a seven picture deal leaves many thespians scratching their heads. Me, I would have not taken seven pictures, I would have done four. He could have made audiences forget about Sean had he carried bond into the seventies. He had that Barry score, Binder's beautiful titles, a great leading lady, good cinematography, Peter Hunt, and Richard Maibaum's script. (Maibaum himself has said that the OHMSS screenplay was the best he'd ever done for a Bond picture.) George's one film has attained a cult status. Yet he choose to walk away. Fool.

    Brosnan, unlike Lazenby was welcomed with open arms by an adoring (and Bond starved)public. The veteran EON team was gone. Barry basically retired, Maibaum out, Binder was dead, Cubby was in poor health, a bunch of new directors who had not earned any 007 chops were now calling the shots. Brosnan had four films to get it right and he fell flat. Like a cross between Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm and Bride of Frankenstein. This miserable creature stumbled into theaters and fell flat on it's ugly face.

    Oh, what could have been. Lazenby had so much going for him, acted in a great film and then walked away and his tale is a woeful one. Brosnan was the peoples choice and his films fall flat. He was finally released after EON decided to reboot with a younger and new actor. Adieu Pierce.

    Agreed on Lazenby, but you lost me when you said Brosnan's films "fell flat"... they didn't.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    We can debate this all day but I still think Broz deserved a better way to bow out than DAD. had he done a film more like GE (competently directed with good action) I doubt he'd be hated as much as he is now.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    BAIN123 wrote:
    had he done a film more like GE

    that won't stop Getafix's hate as he can't stand GE ! :))
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BAIN123 wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Brosnan was such a "people's choice" that maybe the production team felt they could just "phone it in". Hence the crappy casting of Bond girls, lousy title songs, horrible writing, etc...
    Despite the fact that I , Getafix and others constantly slam Brosnan, for some reason he is always rated high among fans. I scratch my head.

    But then some fans rank Halle Berry as one of the top Bond girls....nuff said.

    Err...not me. Hilariously bad Bond girl.

    I do agree that with Brosnan there was a sense of "we've got a popular star, let's just churn stuff out".

    As for turning Bond into a "nostalgia act" he can't get all the blame for that. Listen to the commentary between MGW and LT during the DAD dvd (especially the moment when Jinx comes out of the water). They (namely Tamahori) think they're hitting the ball out of the park.

    Having said that, as I've explained before, Brosnan has his merits. He does have screen charisma - probably more than a certain Mr Dalton (its the reason why Brosnan's had a fairly sucessful film career outside and post Bond, and Dalton...err...not so much). Perhaps I may not like him AS much as I once did but I can still see why he's popular. The way he walks, the little smiles he gives, the way he looks immaculately dressed when wearing a suit. These are little, perhaps shallow, things but they do count - its why the likes of Connery, Moore and even Craig also have a large following.

    Bain is pretty spot on here. The thread is about did Brozza and Laz fail not what is peoples personal opinion of the two.

    I'm not the biggest fan of Brozza but he certainly didn't fail. The only bloke you could level that at would be Dalts whose box office drop off between his first and second films was pretty severe and must have sent panic through the studio. The 6 year gap probably saved the series as another Dalton film could've buried Bond.

    Whilst no one would disagree that Dalton is ten times the actor Brozza is (and probably technically the best actor to take on the role) he lacked that charisma and star power that the public demands from Bond.

    Brozza had it in spades and this is why his films were successful and at the time got good reviews. For all those saying he's just smarmy and smug etc well I can't really see a difference between the tenor of Broz and Sean in TB, YOLT and DAF and most of Rogs performances.
    Actually from the second half of GF onwards Sean never bothered acting the part of James Bond he just strolled around being Sean Connery but I never see anyone slating him for this whilst poor old Brozza gets hammered constantly.

    If Brozza failed it's only from the point of view of personal preference. His films were a massive financial success and he arrested a serious downward curve that had pretty much been going on since OPs heights. From a critical perspective Brozza delivered some solid performances as the cinematic Bond and was really badly served by scripts and directorial choices.

    To say Laz failed is of course ludicrous. The very fact that Cubby and Harry were desperate to keep him says it all.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited June 2012 Posts: 12,837
    @TheWizardOfIce Completely agree, except the part about Dalton failing. TLD beat AVTAK and OP at the box office, and his films got good reviews from most critics. LTK failed financially, but with TLD being successful and the critics praising him, I don't think Dalton failed.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    @theWizardOflce

    I for one never felt Laz failed. He just blew it by walking away from an opportunity that many actors who are still waiting tables would jump at.
    He turned in a good performance and his film is a classic, he should have gone on.

    Cubby and Salzman had spent a lot of time and money grooming him to be the next Bond. Can understand why Cubby blew up when GL chose to walk away.
    I mean he wanted to break into motion pictures. the right move would have been to do 4-5 Bond pictures, brush up on his acting skills, then take a few roles outside of Bond and build up a resume, so that when he walked away from Bond he could have etched a name for himself (like Connery choose to do.)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,718
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @TheWizardOfIce Completely agree, except the part about Dalton failing. TLD beat AVTAK and OP at the box office, and his films got good reviews from most critics. LTK failed financially, but with TLD being successful and the critics praising him, I don't think Dalton failed.

    TLD sold 10 million tickets less (world wide) than OP.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @TheWizardOfIce Completely agree, except the part about Dalton failing. TLD beat AVTAK and OP at the box office, and his films got good reviews from most critics. LTK failed financially, but with TLD being successful and the critics praising him, I don't think Dalton failed.

    TLD sold 10 millions tickets less (world wide) than OP.

    I'm getting this of wikipedia, so no idea how accurate this is, but

    The Living Daylights grossed the equivalent of $191.2 million worldwide.

    And this is from the Octopussy page.

    The film earned slightly less than For Your Eyes Only, but still grossing $187,500,000
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    had he done a film more like GE

    that won't stop Getafix's hate as he can't stand GE ! :))

    Oh he can't stand anything with "Brosnan" and "Bond" in the same sentence. :))
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @TheWizardOfIce Completely agree, except the part about Dalton failing. TLD beat AVTAK and OP at the box office, and his films got good reviews from most critics. LTK failed financially, but with TLD being successful and the critics praising him, I don't think Dalton failed.

    Well, I think its fair to say that he never quite won over the general audience - at least not in the way that the "Big Four" did.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Double post
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    @TheWizardOfIce Completely agree, except the part about Dalton failing. TLD beat AVTAK and OP at the box office, and his films got good reviews from most critics. LTK failed financially, but with TLD being successful and the critics praising him, I don't think Dalton failed.

    TLD sold 10 million tickets less (world wide) than OP.

    Thanks DaltonCraig. Saved me looking it up. Off the top of my head MR was a high, FYEO saw a minor drop off, OP did better than FYEO but not MR then AVTAK returned the lowest figures since TMWTGG if not OHMSS. TLD bettered AVTAK but not OP - probably around the same as FYEO - but LTK slumped miserably to the worst of all time.

    The only reason TLD did OK was 25th and new Bond factor and not due to any public enthusiasm for Dalts - as most people had never heard of him. Although Cubby would never admit it he must have been under a lot of pressure from the studio to bin Tim.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Going back to Laz he was an idiot to walk away when he did. I understand his agent told him that Bond was finished. I've always enjoyed his performance in OHMSS. Considering he'd never acted, it is a triumph. I'd have happily seen him do another but I do feel that ultimately it would have exposed his limitations.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,718
    @WizardofIce

    world_admissions.png

    OHMSS is the only debut film to be less successful than the previous actor's last film (which was YOLT at the time).

    So not counting OHMSS... TLD is the lowest increase of ticket sales for a new actor. And if you look at LTK to GE, Brosnan is the ONLY Bond actor to make a film that was twice as successful as its immediate previous film. Not even Connery at the height of Bondmania managed to make an outing that outgrossed twice over the previous film. And if you look at FYEO, TLD sold 22 million tickets less than that film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ^
    A perfect demonstration of absolutely heightened Bondmania. Thanks @DC007.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    NSNA was more successful than the 2 Dalton films..... so it really seems that before Brosnan arrived, Connery and Moore were the only Bond's 'accepted' by the general public.
  • MollyMolly
    Posts: 17
    @Dalton & Craig, great to see the stats.
    [img][/img]I l[img][/img]ocated an ole 'photo of Fleming & Connery, attempted to transfer it, no luck.
  • MollyMolly
    Posts: 17
    I believe the first make of Casino Royale was in 1957. It was the first Bond movie made.
    I like all the men that have played Bond, but I like Craig. I think he plays the part of a newly appointed 007, almost resentful of the "hovering" over him. I think CR was a restart for Bond and a new start and I think he is very good playing the part. The movies are just a big different than previous movies. I like them, some things could have been better, but they do not have all of us to give advice . . . ha.
    I'm looking forward in viewing Skyfall.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Brosnan did a decent job, i'm sure he is many people's favrouite and his films made big money.

    As for Lazenby, having seen him in a few other things, I think it's safe to say he is no actor and has non exisistent screen prescene, the whole seven film contact thing seems ridiculous to me!
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    So if box office takings are the yardstick for what constitutes a success then the Twilight series, Spiderman 3, War of the Worlds, Transformers and Armageddon are all great movies and their content can never be questioned nor can the performances of the actors.... is that what we're saying here?

    And movies like Blade Runner, Carpenter's The Thing and Shawshank Redemption are in fact all lesser movies because they all bombed at the BO, right? Is that the argument people are using here to bolster their differences of opinion?

    And to say that Sean Connery came across as smug in TB, YOLT and DAF is completely wide of the mark and probably one of the most inaccurate statements I've ever read here on MI6. What Connery gave us was an assured and assertive performance that in no way could be mistaken for self-satisfied. I've never read or heard anyone say, "Oh, that Connery was way too smug as Bond in Thunderball and You Only Live Twice." Yet I've heard the same thing levied at Brosnan countless times.

    Brosnan might not have "failed" at the BO or with some of the less demanding fans but to certain members he obviously didn't deliver a convincing nor an assertive performance. I honestly don't dislike the guy, he's done very well out of Bond and made some good movies beyond the franchise. Still, this doesn't excuse the fact that for some of us he didn't hit the right spot. Will his Bond movies be remembered by the general public with the same fondness as Connery's, Lazenby's, Moore's or Dalton's? I think beyond these fanboy forums he'll be quietly forgotten or at least be remembered for Bond - The Chedder Years.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Will his Bond movies be remembered by the general public with the same fondness as Connery's, Lazenby's, Moore's or Dalton's?

    Regarding Dalton's and perhaps Lazenby's - yes, more so!! Tim and George's films are solid (I rank OHMSS as the second best film in the series) but I really don't think they are remembered with the same level of fondness by general audiences as Connery, Moore, Craig and...yes..Brosnan.

    Only this morning I was reading an article (ok it was in The Sun - but still, its Britains most popular newspaper) about Ali G's Sasha Baron Cohen's plans to make a Bond parody. Underneeth they had a pic of Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig. Dalton and Laz were no where to be seen. Surely that some sort of indicator as to who the public regard as the "better" Bond's.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4476298/Sacha-Baron-Cohen-spoofs-the-worlds-most-famous-secret-agent-James-Bond.html

    (argh, I hate the "Licence to Thrill" phrase. It's such a cliche)

    As for Broz never been confident or "assertive" - pish posh. Granted he had his faults but he also had his merits and there were several moments when I could say "thats Bond" WITHOUT thinking of Connery, Moore etc. If walking from the car park to the hotel in TND isn't "self assured" I really don't know what is.

    Did Brosnan fail? No, he made me a fan.

    Additionally, I've always thought Bond SHOULD be a bit self satisfied and...yes...smug. He is a character who loves to indulge and who loves the thrill of his job (apart from when it involves killing which leaves him uncomfortable).

    Connery was a trifal smug on occasions as was Moore, Brosnan and Craig (Moore and Brosnan especially). Smug Bond? I don't mind that. What I don't like is when other characters are smug (yes you Halle Berry!!).
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    BAIN123 wrote:
    As for Broz never been confident or "assertive" - pish posh. Granted he had his faults but he also had his merits and there were several moments when I could say "thats Bond" WITHOUT thinking of Connery, Moore etc. If walking from the car park to the hotel in TND isn't "self assured" I really don't know what is.

    Did Brosnan fail? No, he made me a fan.
    I happen to think that The Broz was as assertive as Wendy in Peter Pan. Truthfully, I never once thought "that's Bond" whilst watching him in a fight. There's more to being Bond than looking good in a tux. I think to make Bond totally believable it helps that they're a tough guy off screen as well as on it. Connery and Lazenby were both these things, and I know Craig also knows how to handle himself in a brawl. Brosnan falls into the Roger Moore school of believability. In other words it's a total flight of fancy. That's okay if you like your Bond as light as a souffle, but I happen to like Bond when he has a rougher edge to him. Brosnan just didn't cut the mustard for me and I feel it's fair to comment on his lack of credibility, especially as this is what this thread is about.

    I'm happy that Brosnan made you a Bond fan, I really am. But that doesn't mean we all have to be happy with Brosnan's Bond tenure.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    bondsum wrote:

    I'm happy that Brosnan made you a Bond fan, I really am. But that doesn't mean we all have to be happy with Brosnan's Bond tenure.

    True as the same applies to Dalton, glad some folks like him but he did little for the series and has about as much sex-appeal as a goldfish.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    bondsum wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    As for Broz never been confident or "assertive" - pish posh. Granted he had his faults but he also had his merits and there were several moments when I could say "thats Bond" WITHOUT thinking of Connery, Moore etc. If walking from the car park to the hotel in TND isn't "self assured" I really don't know what is.

    Did Brosnan fail? No, he made me a fan.
    I happen to think that The Broz was as assertive as Wendy in Peter Pan. Truthfully, I never once thought "that's Bond" whilst watching him in a fight. There's more to being Bond than looking good in a tux. I think to make Bond totally believable it helps that they're a tough guy off screen as well as on it. Connery and Lazenby were both these things, and I know Craig also knows how to handle himself in a brawl. Brosnan falls into the Roger Moore school of believability. In other words it's a total flight of fancy. That's okay if you like your Bond as light as a souffle, but I happen to like Bond when he has a rougher edge to him. Brosnan just didn't cut the mustard for me and I feel it's fair to comment on his lack of credibility, especially as this is what this thread is about.

    I'm happy that Brosnan made you a Bond fan, I really am. But that doesn't mean we all have to be happy with Brosnan's Bond tenure.

    Bond needs swagger though, and Brosnan had that. True he wasn't the most physical in a fight but he was more nimble and more athletic than Rog. The brief fight on yaught Mountacore shows that. He moved quickly and I immediately thought "Bond" when he wiped his brow with the towel.

    Apparently Fleming considered Niven for the role of Bond (something I can believe since he namechecks Niven in YOLT) - he was hardly the toughest guy off screen but people liked him.

    There's more to being Bond than looking good in a tux.
    Its a start though.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I'm a huge Dalton fan, he's always been my favourite Bond and chances are he always will be, he was my 1st Bond and he got me hooked on the series, but I have to agree with @BAIN123, him and Lazenby aren't as popular as the other Bonds.

    People like them sure, and you can hardly call their films failures, but compared the other 4, they're not as successful.

    I disagree with @bondsum though, on Brosnans films. I do like Brosnan, my 2nd favourite Bond. I didn't think anyone could replace Dalton but Brosnan did a good job. He didn't top Dalton but he kept me intrested in the series and up until DAD I always enjoyed seeing his films at the cinema.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Apparently Fleming considered Niven for the role of Bond (something I can believe since he namechecks Niven in YOLT) - he was hardly the toughest guy off screen but people liked him.
    I can see why Fleming originally thought Niven a good fit as he had joined the commandos and later the secret Phantom Reconnaissance Regiment during the War. If anything Niven was as hard as nails, he just came off a bit lightweight.

    And thelivingroyale, we know you're a big Dalton fan and that the original Bonds are far lower down in your rankings, but surely you can see Dalton and The Broz are chalk and cheese? I think it comes down to 2 things, you either like your Bond as a fop or a hardman. I like the latter which is why I prefer Connery, Lazenby and Craig to the others.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited August 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I dont rank Brosnan as highly as I did (at least Connery and Craig are above him) but i have no shame in saying that I enjoyed him at the time and I still enjoy him now - even if his films are sometimes cheesefests.
    bondsum wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Apparently Fleming considered Niven for the role of Bond (something I can believe since he namechecks Niven in YOLT) - he was hardly the toughest guy off screen but people liked him.
    I can see why Fleming originally thought Niven a good fit as he had joined the commandos and later the secret Phantom Reconnaissance Regiment during the War. If anything Niven was as hard as nails, he just came off a bit lightweight.

    Comes off being the main phrase. Moore has apparently punched Lee Marvin (and hurt him) but his rather awkward movements during a fight mean that we don't always believe it (seeing Moore in a fight during some episodes of The Saint for instance is laughable). He sometimes comes off as unconvincing.

    Not saying Brosnan was much more physical, he wasn't but he probably was quicker.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    bondsum wrote:
    And thelivingroyale, we know you're a big Dalton fan and that the original Bonds are far lower down in your rankings, but surely you can see Dalton and The Broz are chalk and cheese? I think it comes down to 2 things, you either like your Bond as a fop or a hardman. I like the latter which is why I prefer Connery, Lazenby and Craig to the others.

    I know him and Brosnan are different, but I like that. I was glad when I saw GE, that Brosnan wasn't just trying to carry on what Dalton did because I don't think anybody could do it better/as well as he did.

    I don't mind if Bond is a Moore type or a Dalton type, and I think Brosnan is a nice mix of both. Him and Craig both sort of mix up past Bond elements to make their own version. Craig has Daltons ruthlessness and Lazenby's fighting skills. Brosnan has Moore's jokes and Connery's charm, and is sometimes ruthless.

    And I do like the original Bonds, they're not really far lower. I love OHMSS and most of the Connery and Moore films, and Connery and Moore are tied 3rd on my list of best Bond actors, with Lazenby and Craig at 5th or 6th, not sure which one of them I prefer.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Which actors 'blew it'? A teeny weeny bit subjective.

    This is like those threads about which actor is most over rated. And the obvious reply is, overrated by whom? Audiences, critics or Bond fans? Because they all see it differently.

    Therefore, in my opinion Lazenby blew it by quitting, but he didn't blow it performance wise.
    Brosnan blew it by losing the role before he was ready, but he didn't blow it with the cinema audiences, nor with the critics who liked him.
    Dalton blew it with the critics, the audiences, but not the Bond fans.
    Moore blew it with the fans, but not...Oh hell you see my point.


  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    NicNac wrote:
    Dalton blew it with the critics, the audiences, but not the Bond fans

    Not entirely true. TLD seemed pretty popular when it came out, I remember the audience cheering at one part. And TLD and LTK have 73% and 71% on rottentomatoes, not bad, better than lots of the other Bond films, so they weren't failures critically.

    LTK didn't do as well at the box office as past Bond films (but it didn't do that badly at all), and people use that as an excuse to say Dalton wasn't popular. BUT (and I know this response has been used time and time again), look at the competition. Batman, Indiana Jones, etc. Let's look at the latest Bond film, released in 2008, if QOS had been released in the summer, at the same time as The Dark Knight, that wouldn't have done as well.

    Dalton might not have been as popular as Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig, but people did like him and his films weren't really failures.
Sign In or Register to comment.