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

13

Comments

  • Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Birdleson, I only just read your last post and have not followed the discussions about Lazenby on this thread yet.

    What's interesting is your last comments could be referring to Dalton and not Lazenby. I am under the impression that post-LTK, MGM wanted Dalton out (they apparently weren't fond of him at all from the start) and wanted Brosnan in. I believe Cubby stood by Dalton, but given the delays in getting B17 off the ground, Dalton resigned (much to MGM's delight I'm sure).

    My point being the studios seem to have more say in things (historically) than we give them credit for. That may in fact be the case now, as we transition from Sony (possibly).

    I think, reading between the lines, this was true.
  • Posts: 623
    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.

    I think the books have become a lot more interesting since they've been given over to other authors.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Birdleson wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    By you guys making pronouncements that "Lazenby left" does't make it true. He may not want to come out and say he would have been fired regardless. The original point I was making was that it is not cut and dried, that it is in dispute. There are contrary opinions as to what happened (if you just ignore those multiple sources and interviews I have nothing to add or say). Maybe Broccoli wanted him back, but the studios were pushing to have Lazenby axed, and there is reason to think that they could have gotten their way (it was the studio who forced EON to bring back Connery against their wishes) . @stun_harvesting , what I don't appreciate are people intentionally distorting or ignoring my statements. I never said "universally", I said almost every source in the video. And I very clearly stated where I saw this, so if you are "interested" to know my source, as you say, just go back and read the post that you are disagreeing with. Anyone with the blu ray can easily access that feature.

    No one in that documentary suggests in the slightest that Lazenby was forced out by the studio.


    I just watched it last night. It is pretty much stated by the studio execs. I suggest you go back and look. If that means not in the slightest to you, I guess we cannot communicate.

    Sir, you are wrong, but I still love you @Birdleson
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    shamanimal wrote: »
    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.

    I think the books have become a lot more interesting since they've been given over to other authors.
    They may be interesting in their own right, but to me they just have the value they should have since they only are one-offs. No sense of dedication. Then again, that's how I see it.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Birdleson wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    By you guys making pronouncements that "Lazenby left" does't make it true. He may not want to come out and say he would have been fired regardless. The original point I was making was that it is not cut and dried, that it is in dispute. There are contrary opinions as to what happened (if you just ignore those multiple sources and interviews I have nothing to add or say). Maybe Broccoli wanted him back, but the studios were pushing to have Lazenby axed, and there is reason to think that they could have gotten their way (it was the studio who forced EON to bring back Connery against their wishes) . @stun_harvesting , what I don't appreciate are people intentionally distorting or ignoring my statements. I never said "universally", I said almost every source in the video. And I very clearly stated where I saw this, so if you are "interested" to know my source, as you say, just go back and read the post that you are disagreeing with. Anyone with the blu ray can easily access that feature.

    No one in that documentary suggests in the slightest that Lazenby was forced out by the studio.


    I just watched it last night. It is pretty much stated by the studio execs. I suggest you go back and look. If that means not in the slightest to you, I guess we cannot communicate.

    Sir, you are wrong, but I still love you @Birdleson

    I hate to keep going back and forth, but I am not "wrong". Like I said, I watched sit last night. When did you last give it a look?

    Hey man, it doesn't really matter does it? I mean he did one and that was that and there are more important things like tomorrow's football scores. If you think your right, well and good, you are right. But I care more about Hull City beating Huddersfield Town to be honest.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Fine, I don't care that much either. I just get rankled when someone tells me I didn't see and hear what I clearly just saw and heard.

    Fine, i get rankled when Hull City lose. Each to their own ...
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 337
    @Birdleson - I was referring to universal agreement in the video, obviously, because other sources depict it differently. As for why I asked for a video or transcript, I'm just lazy and didn't want to go out and play the movie. But for the sake of not arguing from ignorance, I'll watch it again tonight.
  • Posts: 4,325
    @Birdleson - I was referring to universal agreement in the video, obviously, because other sources depict it differently. As for why I asked for a video or transcript, I'm just lazy and didn't want to go out and play the movie. But for the sake of not arguing from ignorance, I'll watch it again tonight.

    Yes me too. David Picker makes a statement that it was the star that paid the price but that's not, as you say, universal agreement. But anyway it really doesn't matter, I don't understand why Birdleson is so annoyed.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Because I never said Universal agreement, and I was told that no one gave the slightest indication that Lazenby was fired, when (whether you challenge their validity or not is a different story) several people in a row say or imply just that in the documentary I was referring to. So either I'm lying or delusional. I never said that Lazenby was definitely fired, or wasn't; I said that there are opposing statements by those who were involved at the highest levels.

    ok, cool, like i said it doesn't matter, it's just a documentary about a film.
  • Posts: 108
    I don't agree with the initial premise. For example, I can't pick one Bond-film from Connery: FRWL, GF and TB all show another interesting dimension of his Bond-portrayal. The same goes for Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig.

    Casting the same actor for a number of episodes enables the public to get used to the character and connect with him or her. Since every actor brings his own energy and input to a character, changing the actor for each movie would disrupt that process. I also don't agree on the maximum of movies - I think Moore showed us a new but very interesting Bond in his fifth outing, FYEO. And despite the age-argument, I find he showed us the same aspect in AVTAK.

    Also, it's apparently a sound commercial rule in Hollywood, not to change the actor too often in a serial franchise, when you look at other serial franchises: Indiana Jones, Jack Ryan, Ethan Hunt, Jason Bourne, Luke Skywalker, Batman, Superman ...

    By all accounts, this premise may lay too much importance on the lead actor. As movies are the result of a multitude of aspects (script, directing, production design, cinematography, co-stars ...), the freshness of a movie within a franchise can't be attributed solely to the lead actor.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    I think that Bond actors should make no more than 5 films. 5 is enough where they can develop their own interpretation without going stale. I also think that a Bond actor should make at least 3 films. 3-5 should be what they are aiming for, ideally.
  • OnlyManWhoCanOnlyManWhoCan Greater London
    Posts: 202
    While there are a lot of popular choices for the new James Bond, such as Tom Hiddleston and Idris Elba, I feel like they are either too old or too big a name to commit to 3-4 Bond movies spread over 10-15 years.

    However, how would people feel if EON cast one of these hot choices, but made it very clear that they are only bringing them in for one movie?

    I think it might allow the series to avoid being too samey whilst also allowing EON to experiment: I for one can't really see Hiddleston as Bond in the present day (despite being excellent in the Night Manager) but I could see him play the Bond from the books in a one-off Bond movie set in the 50s/60s.

    I'm sure the vast majority of people would prefer consistency but I think Craig has been so excellent the series might benefit with a singular alternative Bond for one-film-only!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,033
    I think you'd lose a lot of fans that way, and the general public will also be less interested. Look at what happened to OHMSS, and how the public reacted to Connery's return, whilst that film was qualitatively worse. Sure, Conner's was the first, but Craig has made a similar impact. No, if these rumours turn out to be true, they sure have a hard time finding a new Bond. But they sure should find one for at least three films, so people can get used to him.

    And as we've seen before, EON may not go for the obvious choices. Who here would've guessed Daniel would take over the role?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That would only work if it is a special film. Old Bond, black Bond or a period piece perhaps. (No Young Bond, please!)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I'm open to it. Christian Bale, directed by Chris Nolan.

    Make it only one if you want, or do the Blofeld Trilogy correctly with these two even in period setting.

    Then get back on track with a new guy..

    It won't happen though.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Yes, Pierce Brosnan can come back and do one last Bond movie and be done.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Yes, Pierce Brosnan can come back and do one last Bond movie and be done.

    I would rather have Lazenby or Dalton. Connery and Moore are obviously too old.
  • Posts: 1,631
    I'm only in favor of a "one-and-done" if it's a former Bond, preferably Dalton, returning for a Never Say Never Again-type of film. Outside of that, I don't see it being a wise direction for the franchise to take.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Then again, if it is a former Bond, it isn t one and done, is it? It is a return a la Connery.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Then again, if it is a former Bond, it isn t one and done, is it? It is a return a la Connery.

    That's true.

    It would be a one-and-done just in terms of the fact that we'd have a change in Bond actor, say going from Craig to Dalton and then on to somebody else, after just one film.

    As for someone being truly one-and-done, as in only making the one film, then that should be a non-starter of an idea from the get-go.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited May 2016 Posts: 45,489
    The Canadian production team behind the upcoming FYEO adaptation, have said they are planning five Bond films in total, each with a different actor and one of them will be black.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Brosnan and Fleming match like Homer and Puff Daddy.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,186
    Brosnan and Fleming match like Homer and Puff Daddy.

    I think he is called P diddy now.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    If John Q. Public loved this theoretical onesie, then wouldn't they be stupid to cut ties with him? The franchise is better off in the long run with the least amount of Bond actors. It's all about setting up that next, long run.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    The Canadian production team behind the upcoming FYEO adaptation, have said they are planning five Bond films in total, each with a different actor and one of them will be black.

    1339.gif
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The Canadian production team behind the upcoming FYEO adaptation, have said they are planning five Bond films in total, each with a different actor and one of them will be black.

    1339.gif

    =))
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The Canadian production team behind the upcoming FYEO adaptation, have said they are planning five Bond films in total, each with a different actor and one of them will be black.

    1339.gif

    =))

    Bang on!!!
  • Posts: 37
    I'd like to see Liam Neeson playing an older Bond on his last mission.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,696
    Nevermind Liam Neeson - give Jason Isaacs his Bond film now!
  • Posts: 6,432
    val-kilmer-the-saint.jpg?w=860

    Val Kilmer he has already played The Saint so following in the footsteps of Sir Roger. ;))
Sign In or Register to comment.