5-movie limit.
Klaus Hergescheimer
Posts: 332MI6 Agent
I think we can all agree that there comes a certain point at which, after a number of movies, the actor playing Bond starts to wear a bit in his performance and visible age. After TB, I think we can agree that Connery's performances got a little lazy and nonchalant. I would personally say that Moore really went downhill after FYEO, due if for no other reason than that his age really started to show at this point. Brosnan made it to DAD and was great in it, but he also really started to show his age in this one.
My proposition is to impose a five-film limit on all Bond actors. This would prevent a case in which there come films in which the actor in question really starts to "jump the shark," so to speak. With this limit imposed, this is how my Bond history would have transpired:
DN, FRWL, GF, TB- Connery
Connery gets the first four films, which were four of the finest made and his four best performances. These are all classics.
YOLT, OHMSS, DAD- Lazenby
Lazenby gets the "Blofeld trilogy," which would have given him enough films to hone his abilities as an actor and improve his Bond. It would also give him a film to prep for OHMSS.
LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR- Moore
Moore gets the 70s Bonds, which are all lighter affairs and well-suited for his talents while he was in his prime.
FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, LTK- Dalton
Dalton gets the Glen films, which are films that have plenty of toned down moments with Fleming-esque imagery and, in the case of the last two, a Fleming-esque tone. I've always felt that these specific films were quite well-suited for Dalton.
GE, TND, TWINE, DAD- Brosnan
Brosnan keeps his films, which are very fun and entertaining and well-suited for Brosnan.
CR, next four- Craig
It's a new era with an excellent new style Bond. Craig can have the next four if he wants them.
My proposition is to impose a five-film limit on all Bond actors. This would prevent a case in which there come films in which the actor in question really starts to "jump the shark," so to speak. With this limit imposed, this is how my Bond history would have transpired:
DN, FRWL, GF, TB- Connery
Connery gets the first four films, which were four of the finest made and his four best performances. These are all classics.
YOLT, OHMSS, DAD- Lazenby
Lazenby gets the "Blofeld trilogy," which would have given him enough films to hone his abilities as an actor and improve his Bond. It would also give him a film to prep for OHMSS.
LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, MR- Moore
Moore gets the 70s Bonds, which are all lighter affairs and well-suited for his talents while he was in his prime.
FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD, LTK- Dalton
Dalton gets the Glen films, which are films that have plenty of toned down moments with Fleming-esque imagery and, in the case of the last two, a Fleming-esque tone. I've always felt that these specific films were quite well-suited for Dalton.
GE, TND, TWINE, DAD- Brosnan
Brosnan keeps his films, which are very fun and entertaining and well-suited for Brosnan.
CR, next four- Craig
It's a new era with an excellent new style Bond. Craig can have the next four if he wants them.
Comments
I like your idea of the four film limit. After that, the actor is indeed too old, unless he starts too young.
As for the grouping, I realize that you're working with what's already been done. I have no problem with the first four. They are the classics, IMO. But it makes me sad we couldn't have had Fleming's trilogy put to film, with OMHSS, YOLT and TMWTGG, faithful to the novels and with a more experienced actor than Lazenby.
In terms of performance Connery clearly declined rapidly after TB. He was never the same again, a pale imitation. Moore, if anything, improved. I consider his performances in FYEO & OP to be his best along with TSWLM.
Age has never been an issue for me, except for in AVTAK. And that's as much down to Eon/Wilson/Maibaum as it is down to Moore himself. Connery & Moore were really at the end of the era of the "mature leading man". You know, Clark Gable, John Wayne, James Stewart, Cary Grant etc. I grew up in that era in which seeing a fifty something lead actor in a film was pretty commonplace. Times change, the way films are made changes, the audiences taste changes.
Overall, I am quite happy with the way things turned out regards the Bond actors. Having said that, I would like to have seen Timothy Dalton in at least one more film. He was the right Bond at the wrong time.
I'm sorry but could you could clarify the rules? ?:) Are we only able to work with films that the actor has actually made, and are we basing this solely on performance, or on a mixture of performance and the quality of the film?
And for me, Octopussy has one of Moore's best performances. I'm a big fan of Roger Moore- always watchable and always entertaining. I think certain scenes in Octopussy would make even his fiercest detractors take note of how good he could have been as a serious Bond- look at his fierce determination to get into the circus to defuse the bomb and his bite in the delivery of 'That's for 009' after killing one of the knife wielding henchmen. The only film I feel Moore isn't so great is Moonraker, and that's the script's fault, not his.
I definately think Moore should have been done after FYEO, which was a great movie, but it went downhill hast after that.
Personally, I would have let Connery continue all the way through YOLT. Although this would not have let Lazenby have the whole set of Blofeld, I think YOLT was one of Connerys best performances IMO.