The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:12 pm

Sweeney, how do you feel the prior 5 Bond actors would have done in CR, better or worse, and which ones, given Craig's script?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:52 pm

bjmdds wrote:Sweeney, how do you feel the prior 5 Bond actors would have done in CR, better or worse, and which ones, given Craig's script?

Connery - would have done an excellent job

Lazenby - too wooden for the emotional parts. He was the weakest link in OHMSS.

Moore - the serious tone would not have suited him (FYEO proves this, IMO).

Dalton - would have done a fine job in the role. Similar to LTK.

Brosnan - would have been interesting to find out.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:48 am

Narrow it down now:CR------Connery or Craig for you and why?

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:19 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Sweeney, how do you feel the prior 5 Bond actors would have done in CR, better or worse, and which ones, given Craig's script?
Connery - would have done an excellent job

Lazenby - too wooden for the emotional parts. He was the weakest link in OHMSS.

Moore - the serious tone would not have suited him (FYEO proves this, IMO).

Dalton - would have done a fine job in the role. Similar to LTK.

Brosnan - would have been interesting to find out.

I'd agree with you on Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, but have to disagree with regards to Moore.

In FYEO, Moore played the role in an unaccustomed style for him, but more in line with the literary character. Although, personally I did not enjoy his performance as much, he still portrayed an excellent Bond and I still felt he came across naturally.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:30 pm

Skywalker wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Sweeney, how do you feel the prior 5 Bond actors would have done in CR, better or worse, and which ones, given Craig's script?
Connery - would have done an excellent job

Lazenby - too wooden for the emotional parts. He was the weakest link in OHMSS.

Moore - the serious tone would not have suited him (FYEO proves this, IMO).

Dalton - would have done a fine job in the role. Similar to LTK.

Brosnan - would have been interesting to find out.
I'd agree with you on Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan, but have to disagree with regards to Moore.

In FYEO, Moore played the role in an unaccustomed style for him, but more in line with the literary character. Although, personally I did not enjoy his performance as much, he still portrayed an excellent Bond and I still felt he came across naturally.

I just couldn't see Moore doing the dirty, bloody, gritty stuff, nor the gruelling physical aspects that Craig performed.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:31 pm

bjmdds wrote:Narrow it down now:CR------Connery or Craig for you and why?

Good question bj, and one that right now I am undecided on.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:06 pm

You really were won over by Craig Sweeney if you are ambivalent about it. For me, Connery could have pulled it off just fine. Too bad he was not given the origin script, being the origin Bond. I wonder how a 1962 CR version would have panned out?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:21 pm

bjmdds wrote:You really were won over by Craig Sweeney if you are ambivalent about it. For me, Connery could have pulled it off just fine. Too bad he was not given the origin script, being the origin Bond. I wonder how a 1962 CR version would have panned out?

I think the torture scene would have changed somewhat. I couldn't have seen them sticking to the violent novel version, or the 2006 film version.

Post by **English Agent** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:30 pm

Hi

This is all conjecture lads......................we dont know how the films would of turned out with different actors.................i mean i sometimes wonder if Connery had been able to take on one more Bond film after YOLT how he would of been in OHMSS................or if Lazenby hadn't been badly influened by his manager how he could of been a great Bond during the 70's.
I think its time to stay in the present and think how the Bond films of this decade will pan out.

AB

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:07 pm

The more things change, the more they remain the same. What worked in 1962 is still enjoyed by most in 2007. Comparisons are always interesting. Imagine if TBM involves a Dr. No type villain?

Post by **Skywalker** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 pm

Arthur Brain wrote:Hi

This is all conjecture lads......................we dont know how the films would of turned out with different actors.................i mean i sometimes wonder if Connery had been able to take on one more Bond film after YOLT how he would of been in OHMSS................or if Lazenby hadn't been badly influened by his manager how he could of been a great Bond during the 70's.
I think its time to stay in the present and think how the Bond films of this decade will pan out.

AB

I think everyone has a fair idea of how the new Bond films will turn out.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:10 am

With Craig in the role, you will get more character driven storylines with still no Q, no Moneypenny, and M being a motherly figure molding her non-youthful looking lad into 00 shape. What is there to look forward to with this trend?

Post by **carl stromberg** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:38 pm

[/quote] Skywalker wrote:

I think everyone has a fair idea of how the new Bond films will turn out.

[/quote]

Daniel Craig will be playing Bond in the next few films, and that does ruin them for me.

Post by **English Agent** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:11 pm

bjmdds wrote:With Craig in the role, you will get more character driven storylines with still no Q, no Moneypenny, and M being a motherly figure molding her non-youthful looking lad into 00 shape. What is there to look forward to with this trend?

Come on 'BJ, Skywalker and co...' Cheer Up!!

If things were that gloomy, you would leave the forums, until when Craig
leaves, otherwise what are you going to talk about for the next ten years.

Surely, even though you dont like Craig in the role, you must still want to see how the new realistic, gritty films turn out over the next few years?
Like the storylines, action scenes, locations, characters, music etc etc.

Blimey...........

btw: I saw the film 'American Gangster' tonight........and thought it was very good.

AB

Post by **bjmdds** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:19 pm

Ten years EA?

As John Pinette says,"Nay-Nay!" It will we watched, but 'only' to see how radically TBM will depart from the Bond films we have all come to enjoy passionately. The 'radical departure' has now become the dominant discussion topic.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:39 am

I disagree about CR being a radical departure. If a Bond film was, then I'd say every Roger Moore film was a radical departure. Sure they have Q, Moneypenny and gadget gimmicks since they're more dominant than Bond is which is what DCINB apparently favors.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:46 pm

Bond, devoid of that Stocks, is a different Bond entity. How was every Roger Moore film a radical departure cinematically?

Post by **James** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:47 pm

stockslivevan wrote:I disagree about CR being a radical departure. If a Bond film was, then I'd say every Roger Moore film was a radical departure. Sure they have Q, Moneypenny and gadget gimmicks since they're more dominant than Bond is which is what DCINB apparently favors.

Timothy Dalton once said he admired the way Moore kept his head above water in the chaos and mayhem of his often fantastical films. If CR had had a lead actor who looked like James Bond I think it would have seemed much less jarring to those of us who thought it was overrated twaddle that didn't feel much like the series we grew up watching.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:50 pm

HBO had a segment on the Kidman/Craig/Green big budget film The Golden Compass yesterday. It looks like 'Hermione Granger meets Jumanji'. You see elements of both those films in it and there seems to be religious outrage against the writer of the story as well. It gets released in 2 weeks in the USA. Craig's name, once again, will probably not add much to the box office take here. The studio may be in for a surprise opening weekend, if the receipts do not pan out as they hope. Then, it's off to The Bourne Mimicry for DC with a thrown together original story by Haggis as the template.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:34 pm

bjmdds wrote:Bond, devoid of that Stocks, is a different Bond entity. How was every Roger Moore film a radical departure cinematically?

Look at the departure: Connery, of course, was suave and cool and good looking. You actually believed that a woman would go to bed with him, even if she was supposed to kill him. Whereas, Roger Moore just looks like your foppish uncle, who no woman under 40 would dream of doing. Totally unbelievable as Bond to the point he never even acknowledged the source, hardly ever resembling Bond in any aspect besides the name. While Daniel Craig isn't 100% Fleming Bond, he at least tries. Never once have I got the sense that Roger Moore was dangerous, he just seemed tacked on. I like him outside of Bond, but as Bond it's just one big contradiction. He even overstayed his welcome by three films, Moonraker should have been his last. Hell, Lazenby should have remained for the 70s then you get Dalton for FYEO.