Placing Bonds in different films

DAWUSS

Could you picture a film being done by a different Bond? For example, could you picture Roger Moore doing CR, Pierce Brosnan doing TB, Tim Dalton doing AVTAK...


Just a thought, and perhaps a way to see certain films a little differently.

Johmss

i always thought that Dalton Should be in AVTAK, the movie indeed would be different, and in a movie after LTK, not necessarily GE, but yeah, i've picture him in that... i think the main change would be the way he would say things... his voice is deeper "meaner" than Moore.

The answer is yes... is quite easy if you think it this way: place more similar actors in their movies and you'll see.

Prince Kamal Khan

Johmss wrote:

i always thought that Dalton Should be in AVTAK, the movie indeed would be different, and in a movie after LTK, not necessarily GE, but yeah, i've picture him in that... i think the main change would be the way he would say things... his voice is deeper "meaner" than Moore.

The answer is yes... is quite easy if you think it this way: place more similar actors in their movies and you'll see.

I'd put Dalton in a massively rewritten AVTAK.

I wrote an "alternative universe" thread on it here

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=13345

I'd also like to see Dalton in a more serious version of FYEO and in GE. Also, a Colonel Sun starring Dalton in the early 1990s would have been cool-

http://007art.free.fr/mygalleries/novels/colonel1.htm

words

Well obviously Roger could have done DAF and I think Daniel Craig in OHMSS would have been interesting.

bigzilcho

Sean in OHMSS.

George in DAF (post OHMSS).

The two biggest "what-ifs" in the series

Call me crazy... but I believe Roger would have been fascinating in OHMSS.

There is a depth to Roger that has been over-shadowed by his charm.

Besides, I always felt that Roger's 007 was a widower, Indeed, one could argue that Roger's playboy 007 lived fast and shallow in order to never get hurt again.

Roger in OHMSS, How's that for a "what-if"?

James F E

I think that Lazenby in DAF would have made a much better film...to carry on the Blofeld end story. Then Dalton in a rewritten AVTAK.-{

Dan Same

Here are three possibilities:

1)Sean Connery in OHMSS (it's unoriginal, but IMO it could have been one of the greatest castings in the history of cinema.)

2)Pierce Brosnan in TLD/LTK (a young, fresh Brosnan could have done these two films with distinction and then could have embarked onto a record-long tenure.)

3)Pierce Brosnan in CR (obviously it would need to have been rewritten to take into account that Brosnan wouldn't be playing a rookie, but I think it could easily have been done.)

Number24

You are crazy, Words.

I think Brosnan and Lazenby could have done any film without major rewrites. Perhaps Connery too.
They can do both tough and silly.
I'm having serious problems picturing Dalton or Craig in an DAD/MR-type movie, just like I have problems picturing Moore in films like FRWL, OHMSS or CR.
I'm totally overlooking the age issue here, obviously.

Number24

I'm very sorry, Words. My comment was ment for
bigzilcho. He really asked for it!

John Drake

I'd like to have seen Dalton in FYEO. That would have suited him perfectly.

Andy A 007

There are many different senarios regarding this topic that I've thought of over the years, but the most interesting one to me would be Timothy Dalton in GE. The GE script, afterall, was written with the assumption that Dalton would be returning. The film would've suited Dalton's Bond like a glove and would have been an excellent way for him to gracefully bow out of the series.
Brosnan was great in GE but I will always dream of the film the way it was meant to be-Starring Timothy Dalton as James Bond 007!

Prince Kamal Khan

Andy A 007 wrote:

There are many different senarios regarding this topic that I've thought of over the years, but the most interesting one to me would be Timothy Dalton in GE. The GE script, afterall, was written with the assumption that Dalton would be returning. The film would've suited Dalton's Bond like a glove and would have been an excellent way for him to gracefully bow out of the series.
Brosnan was great in GE but I will always dream of the film the way it was meant to be-Starring Timothy Dalton as James Bond 007!

Perhaps its poster would look like this-

http://007art.free.fr/mygalleries/arternative/goldalton1.htm

Johmss

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

Perhaps its poster would look like this-

http://007art.free.fr/mygalleries/arternative/goldalton1.htm

That web is amazing.

I'm just happy that a lot of people think that Dalton deserved a better way to end his days (or start them)

Moore in OHMSS... I don´t believe that movie would suit Moore, but if he had done it (in a serious way) that would be worth to watch. but with silly jokes ( I mean WAY TOO REALLY SILLY) It would kill the plot.

I don't recall who say it (or where) but - in my words: " ...when you see Connery killing someone (put Dalton and Craig here too) you knew that chap was dead. When Moore makes a kill, you expect the fellow stand up and go away."

(I believe that was the same Moore)

emtiem

bigzilcho wrote:

Sean in OHMSS.

George in DAF (post OHMSS).

The two biggest "what-ifs" in the series

Call me crazy... but I believe Roger would have been fascinating in OHMSS.

There is a depth to Roger that has been over-shadowed by his charm.

Besides, I always felt that Roger's 007 was a widower, Indeed, one could argue that Roger's playboy 007 lived fast and shallow in order to never get hurt again.

Roger in OHMSS, How's that for a "what-if"?

How about this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/emtiem/rogOHMSSweb.jpg
?

emtiem

Actually- here's a thought: most Bonds are pretty hard to place in one another's films- Craig in Moonraker, Roger in Licence To Kill, Tim in Thunderball? Doesn't really work does it? I'm not even sure that I can see Sean in OHMSS. But oddly, in my mind, Pierce would work in pretty much all of them- he could do Moonraker, he could do LTK, he could do Thunderball- I even think he could do Casino Royale without too much of a push. He may not reach quite the level of perfection that the original actors do in each of those, probably because they were each tailored to Sean, Roger etc., but he'd certainly do a more than passable job.

Now depending on your point of view, that either makes him a bland collage of all the previous Bonds, or the perfect Bond package offering everything. Interesting, though; I really think he's the only one that could do any of the films.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

Actually- here's a thought: most Bonds are pretty hard to place in one another's films- Craig in Moonraker, Roger in Licence To Kill, Tim in Thunderball? Doesn't really work does it? I'm not even sure that I can see Sean in OHMSS. But oddly, in my mind, Pierce would work in pretty much all of them- he could do Moonraker, he could do LTK, he could do Thunderball- I even think he could do Casino Royale without too much of a push. He may not reach quite the level of perfection that the original actors do in each of those, probably because they were each tailored to Sean, Roger etc., but he'd certainly do a more than passable job.

I agree. I love Moore but I don't think he has the versatility of a few of the other Bonds. I also think that Lazenby, Dalton and Craig would struggle in films that truly contrast their own. Connery is an interesting one as IMO he was the best actor of all the Bonds and I think he can do anything. But in terms of motivation, I can't imagine that he would be prepared to be vulnerable in the way that OHMSS requires. I have no doubt that he could do it, but I wonder whether he would even want to.

emtiem wrote:

Now depending on your point of view, that either makes him a bland collage of all the previous Bonds, or the perfect Bond package offering everything. Interesting, though; I really think he's the only one that could do any of the films.

Obviously, some people will say the former, but as a huge Brosnan fan, I prefer to believe that it is the latter, as what made him so good IMO was that he was a terrific all-rounder (plus adding a little 90's new-age sensibility.) That said, I have always thought that Brosnan could be transplanted into any of the other films quite easily (and could improve several of them.)

emtiem

Dan Same wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Now depending on your point of view, that either makes him a bland collage of all the previous Bonds, or the perfect Bond package offering everything. Interesting, though; I really think he's the only one that could do any of the films.

Obviously, some people will say the former, but as a huge Brosnan fan, I prefer to believe that it is the latter, as what made him so good IMO was that he was a terrific all-rounder (plus adding a little 90's new-age sensibility.) That said, I have always thought that Brosnan could be transplanted into any of the other films quite easily (and could improve several of them.)

Yup- that's fair enough. I'd say I feel about halfway between the two- I think he was very good, but sometimes I prefer the differences in anything to shine through- I like different versions of the same thing to have distinct flavours, and Pierce doesn't really. But that's not a bad thing- it was exactly what was needed to get the audience back to Bond in the mid-nineties. It's just personal preference really.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

I think he was very good, but sometimes I prefer the differences in anything to shine through- I like different versions of the same thing to have distinct flavours, and Pierce doesn't really.

I thought that Brosnan was quite distinct but I can see where you're coming from. That is in fact what turned me against Jackman. That is, I don't think he is different enough from Brosnan to really interest me. He could be very good, but I fear that he could be too similar to Brosnan, and for that matter nowhere near as good.

emtiem

Yeah that's a good point. Jackman would just be another Brosnan, and there's no point in that. No matter your feelings on Craig, it is good that he is a contrast to Brosnan: there's no point in doing more films if you're going to do them the same as the previous ones.

Dan Same

emtiem wrote:

Yeah that's a good point. Jackman would just be another Brosnan, and there's no point in that. No matter your feelings on Craig, it is good that he is a contrast to Brosnan: there's no point in doing more films if you're going to do them the same as the previous ones.

I agree with you yet again. When are we going to go back to the days in which we had those endless arguments? )

Harry Palmer

emtiem wrote:

Actually- here's a thought: most Bonds are pretty hard to place in one another's films- Craig in Moonraker, Roger in Licence To Kill, Tim in Thunderball? Doesn't really work does it? I'm not even sure that I can see Sean in OHMSS. But oddly, in my mind, Pierce would work in pretty much all of them- he could do Moonraker, he could do LTK, he could do Thunderball- I even think he could do Casino Royale without too much of a push. He may not reach quite the level of perfection that the original actors do in each of those, probably because they were each tailored to Sean, Roger etc., but he'd certainly do a more than passable job.

Now depending on your point of view, that either makes him a bland collage of all the previous Bonds, or the perfect Bond package offering everything. Interesting, though; I really think he's the only one that could do any of the films.

But that's the problem with Brosnan isn't it? He could do anything reasonably well but nothing to perfection. That's what I mean when I say his bond was middle-of-the-road

Loeffelholz

Good points all---which, to me, secure's Brozzer's place as a 'Greatest Hits'-type Bond; he did it all, to one degree or another, in four films. Nothing wrong in that.

I'd have loved to see Sir Roger play Bond in Licence to Kill (provided he wasn't 58 at the time!)---his portrayal of Sean, the mercenary soldier, in 'Wild Geese' was brilliant---proof that he was capable of being truly threatening and dangerous...but he simply didn't think it right for Bond. Dalton could have done TB, IMRO...Sean in OHMSS is the real tester (could've been brilliant, if he'd been up for it, but it's academic in retrospect)...Craig in MR...?

Actually, I think Craig should go into space in his final (5th or 6th) 007 outing...the 'organization' in which Le Chiffre and Mr. White turn out to be bit players has its final headquarters on the dark side of the moon...how perfect to have the most 'grounded' Bond finish off in a one-sixth gravity pursuit of the villainous CEO, through an eternally hidden mountain moonscape...

Laugh if you want ) It can work...and it'll probably happen, at some point :v

Tee Hee

Loeffelholz wrote:

Actually, I think Craig should go into space in his final (5th or 6th) 007 outing...the 'organization' in which Le Chiffre and Mr. White turn out to be bit players has its final headquarters on the dark side of the moon...how perfect to have the most 'grounded' Bond finish off in a one-sixth gravity pursuit of the villainous CEO, through an eternally hidden mountain moonscape...

Laugh if you want ) It can work...and it'll probably happen, at some point :v

Considering astronomers have recently discovered a new planet that may support life, I'm not going to put anything past EON. However, I highly doubt they would go that OTT with the Craig films. For the moment, the sky is once again the limit.

Five or six pictures for Craig Loeffs? Not even you think he'll stick around that long. Nevertheless, I think Bond 22 will be an important one for Craig. It will be his last chance to convince his detractors, myself included, that he is James Bond. How he performs in Bond 22 will determine whether I want him back at all.

Call me a realist, but I honestly cannot place any of the current Bond actors in different films. This shouldn't come as a big surprise considering many of the scripts were tailored to fit the actor's specific strengths. I need not fantasize about alternate scenarios because I am perfectly happy with everything as it stands.

Dan Same

Harry Palmer wrote:

But that's the problem with Brosnan isn't it? He could do anything reasonably well but nothing to perfection. That's what I mean when I say his bond was middle-of-the-road

Brosnan is often described as an 'all-rounder' (correctly IMO) however I don't think that means that he couldn't do what he does to perfection. I don't consider him to be a middle-of-the-road Bond as, to me, he was the most brilliant Bond since Connery.

What I love about him was that he was able to, firstly, rescue Bond from Dalton (my least-favourite Bond), and secondly and more importantly, he was IMO able to consistantly produce performances that encompassed the suaveness and ruthlessness which I associate with Bond in a fresh and exciting way. I also think that he did add a touch of his own; he added a 90's new-age sensibility and was able to be astonishingly ruthless (the killings of Kaufman and Electra) yet make it seem edible for a new audience.

BTW Loeff, you talk about Moore not being truly threatening and dangerous, well, I still say that one of the greatest ever Bond scenes was the killing of Sandor in TSWLM. If that wasn't threatening, I don't know what was.

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

BTW Loeff, you talk about Moore not being truly threatening and dangerous, well, I still say that one of the greatest ever Bond scenes was the killing of Sandor in TSWLM. If that wasn't threatening, I don't know what was.

I've also always said that he had his moments Post-TSWLM, they became far too rare for my own personal taste.

Loeffelholz

Tee Hee wrote:

Considering astronomers have recently discovered a new planet that may support life, I'm not going to put anything past EON. However, I highly doubt they would go that OTT with the Craig films. For the moment, the sky is once again the limit.

Oh, so do I. But it wouldn't have to be OTT. I'd approach the space flight stuff much more like Apollo 13 than Star Wars---and no Space Marines with laser guns that go "boink! boink!" )

Tee Hee wrote:

Five or six pictures for Craig Loeffs? Not even you think he'll stick around that long. Nevertheless, I think Bond 22 will be an important one for Craig. It will be his last chance to convince his detractors, myself included, that he is James Bond. How he performs in Bond 22 will determine whether I want him back at all.

You're right...I don't expect him to go past three...but I think it would be great if he doubled up

#22 is an important one; but then aren't they all? Craig will no longer be an unknown quantity, he'll have the full support of the Bond theme throughout, and I predict he will adjust his characterization appropriately from the bulk of what was seen in CR---that final scene ("The name is Bond...James Bond") is the 007 we'll have on board for #22.

But I hold no illusions about Craig changing the minds of his detractors---not even you expect your mind to actually be changed, do you?

Tee Hee

Loeffelholz wrote:

#22 is an important one; but then aren't they all? Craig will no longer be an unknown quantity, he'll have the full support of the Bond theme throughout, and I predict he will adjust his characterization appropriately from the bulk of what was seen in CR---that final scene ("The name is Bond...James Bond") is the 007 we'll have on board for #22.

But I hold no illusions about Craig changing the minds of his detractors---not even you expect your mind to actually be changed, do you?

Actually, despite my disappointments, I am still willing to give Craig a chance to redeem himself. Aren't I a nice guy?

It is also my hope that we will see more of the Bond that appeared only briefly at the end of CR, minus the heavy arsenal. Providing that Bond loses the camp shirts, leather jackets, and swimming trunks that accentuate his strong build and his bad boy nature in favor of a suit and tie; providing that we see a greater emphasis on sophistication rather than brute strength; providing that we see a return of the one-line humor; providing that we see a Bond that is more level-headed and less rash; and providing that we see a triumphant return of the "Bond Theme," perhaps then I will come around.

The return of both Q and Moneypenny wouldn't hurt either. :v

The writers/producers seem to have lost touch with the Bond genre last year with CR. In 2008, I want to watch a BOND FILM again.

Walther PPK

Personaly I think that if Dalton was a little older and had done more films in the late 60's he would have been grate in OHMSS.
Having a backround in stage acting I am sure he could pull off Bond letting down his gaurd with Tracy no problem.

Also FYEO in some parts just seams to say Dalton should be Bond, for instance when Bond kicks Locque's car off the cliff seams like something his Bond would do, I remember John Glen saying that at first Roger Moore was not happy about having Bond kill in cold blood and wanted to a less serious version to filmed. Glen however said that Bond was giving Locque his come uppence since Locque ran down the Countess a scenes prior.

Dalton said in many interviews at the time TLD was filming that of Fleming's novels Casino Royale was his favorite. If I were Cubby's shoes in 1989 and had the rights to do Casino Royale I would have filmed it instead of LTK.

Dalton would really shined as Bond, I think every scene in both his films he had me convinced of why
Bond acted the way he did LTK espcialy.

darenhat

For anyone interested, I dug up the thread about the pictures of Dalton in OP.

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=26879

Sadly, I have not had time to continue my 'What If?" photo series lately

Prince Kamal Khan

darenhat wrote:

For anyone interested, I dug up the thread about the pictures of Dalton in OP.

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=26879

Sadly, I have not had time to continue my 'What If?" photo series lately

Let us know when you do darenhat. I'm anxious to see Dalton as Bond in FYEO and GE.

Loeffelholz

Tee Hee wrote:

Actually, despite my disappointments, I am still willing to give Craig a chance to redeem himself. Aren't I a nice guy?

And I'm irritatingly smug? :v You're learning, my young apprentice {[]

Tee Hee wrote:

The return of both Q and Moneypenny wouldn't hurt either. :v

The writers/producers seem to have lost touch with the Bond genre last year with CR. In 2008, I want to watch a BOND FILM again.

By contrast...in 2008, I hope to see yet another example, via literary inspiration, of what a BOND FILM ought to be :007)

But this fundamental difference between our views of what comprises a BOND FILM is why I know you're not about to 'change your mind' about Craig. Those who've changed their minds did so only after actually seeing his performance in CR; those who still didn't like him afterward won't be swayed---Craig is still going to be Craig (read: not your idea of Bond) regardless of whatever trappings of the Precious Classic Formula return in the next couple of Craig-Bond offerings.

As with my own opinion of Moore's Bond, you'll grudgingly give Craig credit for a few scattered Bondian moments during his tenure...perhaps you'll enjoy his movies, to one (lesser) degree or another...but make no mistake: you're waiting for the next guy---and the sooner the better, as far as you're concerned...

Trust me, I know. Been there, done that B-)