James Bond In Skyfall - Part 10

[Dark Raven]

If Moore had started a decade earlier he would probably have been easily the third best Bond. At his best he is better then Brosnan, but he just started far to old in the role and thus the cheese factor was taken to new heights very early on. No different then Diamonds are Forever or DAD.

Well if he started a decade earlier, we wouldn't have had Connery as Bond. That would take us to 1963.

But had he been younger in 1973, it would've worked. The thing is that when he started at 45, he didn't seem all that old. He did seem to age more though by the time of Moonraker. Around the age he was playing the Saint or a bit after would've been ideal.

And I don't think the cheese factor is to do with him being older. It's just that this is the direction they were already heading in with the series before Moore came on board and the decade they were in. DAF is like a Moore film with Connery. So it was already there prior to 1973. If they still had some 60s values, Moore might've played Bond more like the Saint.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well if he started a decade earlier, we wouldn't have had Connery as Bond. That would take us to 1963.

But had he been younger in 1973, it would've worked. The thing is that when he started at 45, he didn't seem all that old. He did seem to age more though by the time of Moonraker. Around the age he was playing the Saint or a bit after would've been ideal.

And I don't think the cheese factor is to do with him being older. It's just that this is the direction they were already heading in with the series before Moore came on board and the decade they were in. DAF is like a Moore film with Connery. So it was already there prior to 1973. If they still had some 60s values, Moore might've played Bond more like the Saint.

Yeah, basically right person, wrong time. I think he started looking old pretty much after Live and Let die, but it got really bad once Moonraker hit.

I think the reason DAF is the way it is was Connery's vast change. He looked ancient compared to YOLT. It felt the same with DAD. As the Bond gets older, more lighthearted. So far Craig has avoided it because he still looks tough as **** and in very good shape, but I fear if he ever starts showing his age.

 

[Dark Raven]

Yeah, basically right person, wrong time. I think he started looking old pretty much after Live and Let die, but it got really bad once Moonraker hit.

I think the reason DAF is the way it is was Connery's vast change. He looked ancient compared to YOLT. It felt the same with DAD. As the Bond gets older, more lighthearted. So far Craig has avoided it because he still looks tough as **** and in very good shape, but I fear if he ever starts showing his age.

Before LALD, when Moore was offered the role, he actually had to lose weight. He might've looked a bit older in The Persuaders, and certainly wasn't in the same shape as in the Saint. Maybe he had to battle to stay in shape after LALD.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Don't forget the scene in the same movie where Anya is showing off her background knowledge of Bond, and mentions his deceased wife Tracy. Bond automatically shuts her down and is quite sharp with her:

Spoiler

Anya: Commander James Bond, recruited to the British Secret Service from the Royal Navy. License to kill and has done so on numerous occasions. Many lady friends but married only once. Wife killed...
Bond: You've made your point.
Anya: You're sensitive, Mr. Bond?
Bond: About some things, yes.

It's great to see, especially coming from Moore who would normally have a one-liner to respond to that sort of thing. Here it almost shows that his jovial personality is more of a facade to keep people out and maintain a humourous front, when in fact he might be more serious deep down.

I can also see an evolution of Bond from Connery to Lazenby to Moore to Dalton which could easily show they are the same character. It's almost as if Bond's coping mechanism after the death of Tracy is to make a joke of everything, whereas he was a bit more serious and well-adjusted before that in his pre-marriage, Connery days. However, he finally snaps in LTK and loses all humour. Also, maybe he's just tired of pretending everything is okay, fed up of laughing it off, and has become more world weary and cynical, so he drops the humour and goes dark.

Fully agreed. Moore was capable of pulling off serious and it sucks that he had to deal with bad writing and age more than the time that clouds the good parts of his performances.

Brosnan seemed like he was trying to hide his somewhat cruel nature underneath. I got the sense that his Bond was largely a bastard (Bahsted), and that he laid on the charm to hide his true nature.

Moore struck me as someone copeing with pain, but also an overall good guy despite the darkness.

Exactly. That's why I love Brosnan's portrayal of Bond. He had charactistics of novel Bond, but hid it behind a smile with his charm. Brosnan hid his cynicism and while Moore was cyncial, I honestly couldn't see Moore's Bond killing someone in cold blood like Brosnan's Bond was, though if I remember I think novel Bond is against killing in cold blood though.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The problem I have is that Brosnan isn't hiding darkness. He is hiding melodrama with cheese. He doesn't have the rage underneath that Craig or even Dalton have/had. Craig or Dalton's Bond could snap and break your neck. Brosnan's might slap you.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That's because Brosnan's Bond was more of a shooter than a hand-to-hand fighter. He would snap your neck, he'd fill you body up with holes.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just because one shoots a gun, doesn't mean their expression and body language when they do it doesn't matter. Craig's Bond has been more efficient with a gun in two films then Brosnan's Bond ever was. Where as when Brosnan's Bond went hand to hand or shot his gun, he was very Hollywood or even stage and thus looked foolish in comparison.

Brosnan just wasn't hard enough for Bond. His attempts at being tough or gritty come off cheese. He has no manliness to him. There is nothing underneath that hurts or claws at a man's soul, just self-pity.

 

[Dark Raven]

The problem I have is that Brosnan isn't hiding darkness. He is hiding melodrama with cheese. He doesn't have the rage underneath that Craig or even Dalton have/had. Craig or Dalton's Bond could snap and break your neck. Brosnan's might slap you.

It's more like Brosnan was hoping you'd think he was hiding darkness. This is what he was trying to portray, but he's not really good enough as an actor to do that. Brosnan should have really been beaten by Sean Bean in that fight in Goldeneye, especially back when he was in his Remington Steele days. He seems rather small and not really tough enough. Bean seemed inherently tougher. Brosnan was more playing at being tough, which is why it's hard to believe he's got a dark side lurking beneath the surface.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's more like Brosnan was hoping you'd think he was hiding darkness. This is what he was trying to portray, but he's not really good enough as an actor to do that. Brosnan should have really been beaten by Sean Bean in that fight in Goldeneye, especially back when he was in his Remington Steele days. He seems rather small and not really tough enough. Bean seemed inherently tougher. Brosnan was more playing at being tough, which is why it's hard to believe he's got a dark side lurking beneath the surface.

That is a very good way of putting it. It looks like he is trying, like someone who wants you to believe he is carrying this burden. Look, look, I'm in pain. Hence, melodramatic.

 

[BobJM]

I grew up with Brosnan's films. He'll always be Bond to me. Even despite the hate DAD gets, I still enjoy it. Best opening credits scene to date. Jinx isn't the deepest character and invisible cars aren't the most practical, but before the recent "realistic approach" craze, I never really went into my Bond films hoping that everything could actually happen.

I don't remember watching Goldeneye and gaffing at a football-sized satellite appearing in eh middle of Cuba. Or laughing at Renard's inability to feel pain. Bond's always been a little larger than life.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I grew up with Brosnan as well. Love Goldeneye, but once I saw the first 6 and Casino Royale came out, he could never be my Bond.

 

[The Batman]

Roger Moore is actually my second favorite Bond. He was in a lot of bad films, but he always delivered even if he was surrounded by dreck. Moore at his worst was better than Connery or Brosnan at their worst. At his best, he was funny and charming and everything that Bond was supposed to be.

And he wasn't just a clown either. He handles serious scenes quite capably as well. The performance that Moore gives in FYEO surpasses Dalton in LTK in what were both revenge plots. The dinner scene with Christopher Lee in the TMWTGG is one of the best scenes in the entire franchise and it was completely serious. His Octopussy crushes Connery's Never Say Never Again.

Moore never gets the credit he deserves because his style of Bond is out of favor these days and because his films were often awful, but he was excellent in the role and never ceased to be entertaining.

This a thousand times.

To me, Moore is the only Bond actor who could actually rival Sean's in term's of an iconic performance. I've said this before, but I don't think being just like book Bond makes you the best Bond...and I've read and enjoyed the books. Moore wasn't the living representation of Fleming, but he took the role, made it his own, and carried the series through the 70's and 80's. Even in his bad films he's entertaining.

 

[regwec]

Brosnan just isn't a very good actor. He was a very good looking guy in his youth, and he probably owes his career to that. His best roles were in The Long Good Friday, which is a non-speaking part, and his comedy turn in Mars Attacks.

Tatiana Romanova (just the best-looking, and very girl-next-door + exotic).

Surely those two qualities are mutually exclusive, by definition?

 

[BobJM]

Brosnan just isn't a very good actor. He was a very good looking guy in his youth, and he probably owes his career to that. His best roles were in The Long Good Friday, which is a non-speaking part, and his comedy turn in Mars Attacks.

His acting is never really something that occurred to me (and, yes, before I get flamed for saying an actor's acting wasn't really on my mind, let me explain).

He's Bond. He's a secret agent who gets the girls, has awesome gadgets, and throws in a quip here and there. It's not like we're talking about Citizen Kane over here.

Brosnan, above all else, was charismatic. Unlike Roger Moore (in his later films), you could believe he could still get the girl. He had a smooth vibe about him, that made it seem possible that he could legitimately outsmart the baddies and save the day. His charisma is the very thing I associate with Bond.

And, true, I've never read the novels, but most of the GA hasn't. Bond is a classic franchise that seeks new action/adventure heights. It's not a drama about a broken man. It's a spy action film.

That's why, when I see people blasting Brosnan and his films, I don't get it. These movies are supposed to be fun and border over the top. If you want a serious spy flick, go watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or Argo.

 

[baerrtt]

Brosnan seemed like he was trying to hide his somewhat cruel nature underneath. I got the sense that his Bond was largely a bastard (Bahsted), and that he laid on the charm to hide his true nature.

Moore struck me as someone copeing with pain, but also an overall good guy despite the darkness.

That's why I rate Moore's take. In terms of the character's development in the film series Moore shows Bond becoming a genuinely good and heroic man by the end of each of his movies. Look at FYEO where he tries to stop Melina from killing the man who murdered her parents because he, a professional, knows the cost deep down. Connery always seemed, sometimes, like a bad guy who happened to be on the right side whilst Roger's Bond, after his first 2 entries, was a pure hero.

 

[baerrtt]

The problem I have is that Brosnan isn't hiding darkness. He is hiding melodrama with cheese. He doesn't have the rage underneath that Craig or even Dalton have/had. Craig or Dalton's Bond could snap and break your neck. Brosnan's might slap you.

Even Moore's Bond had angry moments that took you by surprise because of his generally genial nature.

 

[regwec]

His acting is never really something that occurred to me (and, yes, before I get flamed for saying an actor's acting wasn't really on my mind, let me explain).

He's Bond. He's a secret agent who gets the girls, has awesome gadgets, and throws in a quip here and there. It's not like we're talking about Citizen Kane over here.

Okay, so you don't expect much from a Bond film, and you think a lightweight actor like Brosnan is sufficient for the part. I love Bond movies and the novels, I think the role is potentially a very interesting one, and I think a capable actor like Daniel Craig can enrich the whole experience.

Brosnan, above all else, was charismatic. Unlike Roger Moore (in his later films), you could believe he could still get the girl. He had a smooth vibe about him, that made it seem possible that he could legitimately outsmart the baddies and save the day. His charisma is the very thing I associate with Bond.

I completely disagree. I find him to be stiff, and oily. He seems like a regional sales manager or something. And there is something oddly asexual about him, like he would dose a girl up with Rohypnol and then...fail.

And, true, I've never read the novels, but most of the GA hasn't. Bond is a classic franchise that seeks new action/adventure heights. It's not a drama about a broken man. It's a spy action film.

You're entitled to your opinion; I would prefer that Bond does not target itself at the lowest common denominator.

That's why, when I see people blasting Brosnan and his films, I don't get it. These movies are supposed to be fun and border over the top. If you want a serious spy flick, go watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or Argo.

There is nothing in the tradition of Bond that says it has to be that dumb. Yes, it should have glamour and excitement and spectacle, but the leading man doesn't have to be a two-dimensional suit-wearing manakin; and you can have some drama with your action. All the best Bond movies did; from FRWT to OHMSS to FYEO to Casino Royale.

 

[Slushy]

While I agree Roger Moore had charm, my biggest problem with him is he didn't care for the source material. The Bond franchise was just a paycheck to him and 6 of his films show that.

At least the other actors aside from George had passion for the character they played.

And yes, Pierce Brosnan was what Roger Moore should've been although the irony is how much hate Die Another Day gets, Moore fans should be proud of it.

 

[The Batman]

While I agree Roger Moore had charm, my biggest problem with him is he didn't care for the source material. The Bond franchise was just a paycheck to him and 6 of his films show that.

At least the other actors aside from George had passion for the character they played.

And yes, Pierce Brosnan was what Roger Moore should've been although the irony is how much hate Die Another Day gets, Moore fans should be proud of it.

I could say the same thing about Connery from Thunderball onwards. While he had that passion you speak of for the first three movies, when the franchise became more about spectacle, he just didnt care anymore.

 

[BobJM]

Okay, so you don't expect much from a Bond film, and you think a lightweight actor like Brosnan is sufficient for the part. I love Bond movies and the novels, I think the role is potentially a very interesting one, and I think a capable actor like Daniel Craig can enrich the whole experience.


I completely disagree. I find him to be stiff, and oily. He seems like a regional sales manager or something. And there is something oddly asexual about him, like he would dose a girl up with Rohypnol and then...fail.


You're entitled to your opinion; I would prefer that Bond does not target itself at the lowest common denominator.


There is nothing in the tradition of Bond that says it has to be that dumb. Yes, it should have glamour and excitement and spectacle, but the leading man doesn't have to be a two-dimensional suit-wearing manakin; and you can have some drama with your action. All the best Bond movies did; from FRWT to OHMSS to FYEO to Casino Royale.

I'm not saying Bond can't be taken seriously, but there's a reason these movies have been around since the 60's. They are, at its core, fun. I took Brosnan seriously in his films. He's a larger-than-life spy in an action adventure film. It's suspension of disbelief. People love Goldfinger. Am I supposed to believe that Oddjob is a serious threat? Would ppl approve of him in one of Craig's film? Of course not, because people are forgetting Bond's roots in film.

I don't know what you're getting at with your date-rape/asexual references with Brosnan, so I'll leave that alone since I doubt we'd come to some sort of agreement on that front.

And since when has the general audience become the lowest common denominator? It's not a bad thing to enjoy a film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Dr. No wasn't some moody melodrama and that's what kick-started this all. We're talking about a franchise that has shown us voodoo and underwater cars, space stations, and cars outfitted with rocket launchers. Audiences have kept coming back to this character, despite what a surprisingly large number of "fans" detest as and call campy.

You can moan and groan all you want about Bond not being taken seriously, but if you look at the 50 years of his cinematic incarnations (even with the more serious-leaning films), Bond has never been short of spectacle and fun...again, something that Brosnan's films captured well.

 

[regwec]

I'm not moaning or groaning- Bond seems to be in good hands, and Daniel Craig is a massive improvement over Brosnan. What is more, the general audience loved Casino Royale, so they don't seem to be afraid of character motivation amongst the explosions and cleavage.

 

[Slushy]

I'm watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service for the first time right now, and I'm enjoying it. I watched the new Bond documentary "Everything or Nothing: The Untold Story of 007" Friday night and they had Lazenby on their discussing his time as Bond. During the shoot he became friends with this hippy druggy, and began doing drugs, and trying to live Bond's extravagant lifestyle. He said he got out of control and let his fame go to his head. So Eon had to let him go. Its sad really. Hard to believe he had no acting experience before playing Bond.

Yeah, on The UE, its talked about that George was being difficult to work with. He probably thought "Oh yeah, I played James Bond! I'm an A-Lister now!" and tried to use his one shot as an acting stepping stone which completely backfired on him.

His acting was decent, but the hate for him by me was him listening to his agent on giving up the role. That's the story I recall. I don't blame EON for treating him like an afterthought after he turned his back on them. All the effort put into trying to groom Lazenby into a star as it had worked with Connery gone to waste.

I could say the same thing about Connery from Thunderball onwards. While he had that passion you speak of for the first three movies, when the franchise became more about spectacle, he just didnt care anymore.

Yeah, the attention from the media and crazy fans, the difficulties of filming YOTL, and the producers low balling Connery (sadly, history would repeat itself with Brosnan) all killed his passion. He also didn't like how they would ante up the films as they progressed.

Ironically, had they filmed OMHSS (Bridget Bardot was the original choice for Tracy) after Thunderball, I think Connery would've stuck around a bit longer. 7 films even. We would've gotten a proper revenge movie and he could've left the series on a good note instead of a whimper.

 

[Dark Raven]

While I agree Roger Moore had charm, my biggest problem with him is he didn't care for the source material. The Bond franchise was just a paycheck to him and 6 of his films show that.

At least the other actors aside from George had passion for the character they played.

And yes, Pierce Brosnan was what Roger Moore should've been although the irony is how much hate Die Another Day gets, Moore fans should be proud of it.

In other words, Roger needed to be a pastiche of himself and Connery, since Brosnan is a pastiche of Moore and Connery.

I see that Moore is what Brosnan should've been. Brosnan isn't like Connery or Dalton even, so he was trying to play someone he's not. Brosnan is more like Moore, and that's the kind of take he probably would've given if he had been Bond in The Living Dayliights. Brosnan wasn't really playing to his strengths during his tenure as Bond. That's why he feels generic and without a proper identity.

 

[BobJM]

Yet QoS, which delved even more into Bond's internal struggles (which slowed the film to a crawl at points) didn't do as well. You can't just skip over that one.

If anything, Skyfall (from what I've seen in trailers) is going back to the older films' incarnations and diving back into what made Bond a fun character. Q, new gadgets, a title song that more channels the older Connery films, etc.

 

[regwec]

I think QoS did less well because it was a mess.