acceptable only from certain actors

Dan Same

A while back I saw DN at the cinemas (loved it ) and seeing Sir Sean sing at the end made me realise something. With all due respect to the other Bonds, Connery is the only one whom I can accept doing something as 'unBond-like' as singing. Similarly when Connery confided to Honey that he too was frightened, this was something that I had no problem Connery doing.

This therefore leads to an interesting question. Is there anything, major or minor, that one can only accept a particular actor doing? For example, while singing is an example of a minor thing that I can only accept Connery doing, I'm sure there are many members who can only accept Craig executing (so to speak) the reboot, as an example of a major thing.

So what do you think? Can you only accept something only from a certain actor? One request; please no actor bashings. It's probably a little unreasonable, but if you can accept something from a particular actor, can it not because he's not X or Y? Thanks.

Barbel

It's a moot point whether singing is "unBond-like"- after all, the part where Bond joins in with Honey singing is straight from the book (only the actual song is changed)! John Gardner also had 007 sing, driving alone in his car.

Re Connery and Honey, I could also accept Dalton, Lazenby or Craig telling Bondgirl that he's frightened. Check Lazenby's face just before he meets Tracy after escaping from Piz Gloria or Craig's when he realises his situation at the torture scene. Fear conveyed quite convincingly without words.

For an obvious point, some of Moore's quips are definitely his territory alone!

7289

Old Sean did a good turn of singing in "Darby O'Gill", and got his start in the chorus of "South Pacific" so singing was something he was not a stranger too. John Huston asked SC to play Daddy Warbucks in his version of "Annie", but SC wisely declined.

I am sure the others could have pulled off a line or to, possibily with a little help from the sound engineer - but they probably couldn't match SC nice tones.

I never really thought Bond was scared in Dr. No, just being nice to Honey. Quarrel WAS scared - look what happened to him.

Lazenby as pointed out looked really scared before Tracy finds him at the ice rink. I suspect that look crossed Lazenby's face alot during filming.

Hardyboy

I guess Roger Moore is the only Bond I can accept baking quiche. . .could anyone see Connery or Dalton doing that? And, while Connery is the most likely Bond to wear a kilt, Lazenby did a passable job of wearing it.

As for singing, I was actually impressed by Craig's singing voice in Infamous, so if he wanted to belt out a couple of bars a la Connery in Dr. No I could probably accept it--so long as it doesn't turn into Bond! The Musical!

Honey Rider

For me, I could only accept Lazenby acting the way he did after Tracey's death. I don't think he was the best actor of the Bonds, and I'm not saying that another actor couldn't have done a great job, but I don't think it would have been as emotionally satisfying as it was when Lazenby reacted to the death of Tracey.

Dan Same

Barbel wrote:

It's a moot point whether singing is "unBond-like"- after all, the part where Bond joins in with Honey singing is straight from the book (only the actual song is changed)! John Gardner also had 007 sing, driving alone in his car.

I was only speaking about the films. Flemingists will disagree with me on this, but I think the films are separate from the books. Anyway, my point was that, in terms of the films, I consider the idea of singing to be 'unBond-like' and I would be uncomfortable with Bond singing. Like HB I don't want a Bond film to be a musical, but more than that, it doesn't sit well with me at all. The exception to that is Connery in DN. There are two reasons: Connery and the film. IMO Connery is so effortlessly cool that his singing comes across to me as just another thing Bond would do. In regards to the film, I found the introduction to Honey to be so sweet and sexy, that I think the singing matched the scene perfectly. :x

Barbel wrote:

Re Connery and Honey, I could also accept Dalton, Lazenby or Craig telling Bondgirl that he's frightened. Check Lazenby's face just before he meets Tracy after escaping from Piz Gloria or Craig's when he realises his situation at the torture scene. Fear conveyed quite convincingly without words.

This is actually why I posted this topic. Although Connry might not have been the only actor to express fear, he was, with all due respect to the others, the only actor whom I accepted expressing such an emotion in the way that he did to Honey.

It is certainly true that Bond has shown fear in several films, and I often actually don't have a problem with it (OHMSS aside), however what I am really talking about is the idea of Bond telling the woman that he was with that he too was scared. It might not sound like such a distinction, but I guess I don't love for Bond to be so open (verbally or otherwise) about his fear. Bond was extremely open in DN and I didn't mind it as Connery IMO is so awesomely 'masucline' that he actually makes it cool to do so. I am relieved however that that scene in DN was the most explicit Connery ever got in regards to showing fear. Nonetheless, showing fear in such an explicit way is something I can only accept from Connery.

BTW, I just want to clarify that people can pick anything they want. It can be something connected with more than one actor and it can be as subjective and illogical as they like.

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

I was only speaking about the films. Flemingists will disagree with me on this, but I think the films are separate from the books.

No, as a Flemingist, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. There's no denying that film and literature are separate media---Thank God, as I'd hate to have had the books ruined for me during the Filmic Dark Ages^TM

Flemingists simply like to see a bit of Literary Bond 'cross over' into film, and believe that Cinematic Bond benefits greatly from the occasional 'Fleming transfusion' B-)

JennyFlexFan

Loeffelholz wrote:

No, as a Flemingist, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. There's no denying that film and literature are separate media---Thank God, as I'd hate to have had the books ruined for me during the Filmic Dark Ages^TM

Take it back! Take it back this INSTANT! X-(

Barbel

Loeffelholz wrote:

No, as a Flemingist, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. There's no denying that film and literature are separate media---Thank God, as I'd hate to have had the books ruined for me during the Filmic Dark Ages^TM

Flemingists simply like to see a bit of Literary Bond 'cross over' into film, and believe that Cinematic Bond benefits greatly from the occasional 'Fleming transfusion' B-)

Hear hear! Perhaps "frequent Fleming transfusion" though.

Georgiboy

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

No, as a Flemingist, I wouldn't disagree with that at all. There's no denying that film and literature are separate media---Thank God, as I'd hate to have had the books ruined for me during the Filmic Dark Ages^TM

Take it back! Take it back this INSTANT! X-(

Ha ha ), you guys crack me up.

kronides

I don't think any of them except Roger Moore could've dressed up like a clown and still come off as legit.

7289

kronides wrote:

I don't think any of them except Roger Moore could've dressed up like a clown and still come off as legit.

oo7 + Clown + legit??? I don't think so.

oo7 + RogerMoore + Clown = Dark Ages (TM)

Dan Same

7289 wrote:

oo7 + Clown + legit??? I don't think so.

oo7 + RogerMoore + Clown = Dark Ages (TM)

Actually you're mistaken. The dark ages ran from 1985 to 1989. :v (I think that anti-Mooreists should thank the gods for the clown costume. Otherwise you wouldn't have all that much else to criticise Moore about. ))

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

The dark ages ran from 1985 to 1989. :v (I think that anti-Mooreists should thank the gods for the clown costume. Otherwise you wouldn't have all that much else to criticise Moore about. ))

Cue the pigeon |)

Naturally, we'll disagree about when the dark ages began---and when they ended---but at least most of us can be relieved that they're over {[]

Tee Hee

Dan Same wrote:

anti-Mooreists

I prefer to call them Moore-ons (Morons)

Loeffelholz wrote:

Naturally, we'll disagree about when the dark ages began---and when they ended---but at least most of us can be relieved that they're over {[]

Alas, for some of us the Dark Ages have just begun (circa 2006).

I agree with a lot of what everybody has said so far. I can only see Lazenby crying, Moore wearing a clown suit, etc. However, I would like to add that Sean Connery is the only Bond that can get away with wearing a pink tie! )

actonsteve

Dan Same wrote:

7289 wrote:

oo7 + Clown + legit??? I don't think so.

oo7 + RogerMoore + Clown = Dark Ages (TM)

Actually you're mistaken. The dark ages ran from 1985 to 1989. :v (I think that anti-Mooreists should thank the gods for the clown costume. Otherwise you wouldn't have all that much else to criticise Moore about. ))

The dark ages definitely ran from 1995 to 2002. An era of increasingly diminishing returns. Brosnan deserves the brickbrats thrown at him now that his era is gone and it is reassessed (just like David Tennants will be). He was a bland Bond, pretty, charming, good with lousy quips but not the tour de forces that four of the other Bonds are.

His era got tangled up in bad scripts, terrible casting and finished up with very messy direction. His Bond films didnt even have the wit to be parodies. They had an empty feeling I've never experienced with any other era.

Yep, definitely 1995 to 2002. Thank god it is over.

Dan Same

actonsteve wrote:

The dark ages definitely ran from 1995 to 2002. An era of increasingly diminishing returns. Brosnan deserves the brickbrats thrown at him now that his era is gone and it is reassessed (just like David Tennants will be). He was a bland Bond, pretty, charming, good with lousy quips but not the tour de forces that four of the other Bonds are.

His era got tangled up in bad scripts, terrible casting and finished up with very messy direction. His Bond films didnt even have the wit to be parodies. They had an empty feeling I've never experienced with any other era.

Yep, definitely 1995 to 2002. Thank god it is over.

Well, I guess one man's dark ages is another man's bronze era. Obviously I disagree with everything that you said, which is fine, but I want to say that for me, the best era was the 60's, followed by the 70's, the 90's, the early 80's, the 000's and the mid-to-late 80's. Although I don't quite agree with Tee Hee that we are currently in the dark ages, I certainly think we are in the second worst era of all time.

actonsteve

Dan Same wrote:

actonsteve wrote:

The dark ages definitely ran from 1995 to 2002. An era of increasingly diminishing returns. Brosnan deserves the brickbrats thrown at him now that his era is gone and it is reassessed (just like David Tennants will be). He was a bland Bond, pretty, charming, good with lousy quips but not the tour de forces that four of the other Bonds are.

His era got tangled up in bad scripts, terrible casting and finished up with very messy direction. His Bond films didnt even have the wit to be parodies. They had an empty feeling I've never experienced with any other era.

Yep, definitely 1995 to 2002. Thank god it is over.

Well, I guess one man's dark ages is another man's bronze era. Obviously I disagree with everything that you said, which is fine, but I want to say that for me, the best era was the 60's, followed by the 70's, the 90's, the early 80's, the 000's and the mid-to-late 80's. Although I don't quite agree with Tee Hee that we are currently in the dark ages, I certainly think we are in the second worst era of all time.

I'm not joking Dan. While Goldeneye was a spirited return though ultimately bland film I sat stunned each time I paid to see a new Bond and it got worse.

It reached the stage with DAD where I was hoping that Bond would reach an ignominious end and forty years of memories would not be tarnished.

Thank god for Daniel Craig!

Loeffelholz

Tee Hee wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Naturally, we'll disagree about when the dark ages began---and when they ended---but at least most of us can be relieved that they're over {[]

Alas, for some of us the Dark Ages have just begun (circa 2006).

I'll drink to that...here's to balance in the Bondiverse {[]

One picture down, six to go

youknowmyname

Loeffelholz wrote:

Tee Hee wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Naturally, we'll disagree about when the dark ages began---and when they ended---but at least most of us can be relieved that they're over {[]

Alas, for some of us the Dark Ages have just begun (circa 2006).

I'll drink to that...here's to balance in the Bondiverse {[]

One picture down, six to go

Loef, I love DC too, but you have high hopes, high apple pie in the sky hopes. 7? i think 4

Loeffelholz

youknowmyname wrote:

Loef, I love DC too, but you have high hopes, high apple pie in the sky hopes. 7? i think 4

Yeah...I don't really expect him to do seven...but I just love posting it for the benefit of the haters :v -{

arthur pringle

actonsteve wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

7289 wrote:

oo7 + Clown + legit??? I don't think so.

oo7 + RogerMoore + Clown = Dark Ages (TM)

Actually you're mistaken. The dark ages ran from 1985 to 1989. :v (I think that anti-Mooreists should thank the gods for the clown costume. Otherwise you wouldn't have all that much else to criticise Moore about. ))

The dark ages definitely ran from 1995 to 2002. An era of increasingly diminishing returns. Brosnan deserves the brickbrats thrown at him now that his era is gone and it is reassessed (just like David Tennants will be). He was a bland Bond, pretty, charming, good with lousy quips but not the tour de forces that four of the other Bonds are.

The analogy between Brosnan and Tennant is an interesting one in that each actor followed a more serious interpretation of their respective characters. I really like Tennant and I think Dr Who is much more fun with him.

7289

I will submit that the "Dark Ages"* began in 1967 and didn't end until 2006.

There were ocassional bursts of sunlight in the dark ages. Parts of OHMSS, FYEO, NSNA, TLD, LTK and tiny pieces of Goldeneye actually got on track with the universe of James Bond oo7.

In retrospect "blame" for the sidetracking and lost opportunity lies with the Producers. I feel confident in saying that better material would have been met by the Bond actors with glee. Sadly, a couple of those actors were just interested in picking up paychecks, so scripts with Bond as a clown, or driving an invisable car, were of no matter as long as the location trailer was warm and the drinks cool.

It really took some awareness on the part of the producers to see they really had run the franchise into the dirt with DAD, and the reboot is really the only way to get the Bondiverse back into some kind of balance. Thankfully they chose an Actor to play Bond - someone interested in playing a charecter and not just picking up a check. But who can tell how long that will last?

Hopefully the balance of a Fleming Inspired Script and dedicated Actors will remain in place for now and in the Post Craig Era. In any event, Producers should not be afraid in the future to bring down the curtain on one Bond and "reboot" for the next one.

kronides

7289 wrote:

I will submit that the "Dark Ages"* began in 1967 and didn't end until 2006.

There were ocassional bursts of sunlight in the dark ages. Parts of OHMSS, FYEO, NSNA, TLD, LTK and tiny pieces of Goldeneye actually got on track with the universe of James Bond oo7.

In retrospect "blame" for the sidetracking and lost opportunity lies with the Producers. I feel confident in saying that better material would have been met by the Bond actors with glee. Sadly, a couple of those actors were just interested in picking up paychecks, so scripts with Bond as a clown, or driving an invisable car, were of no matter as long as the location trailer was warm and the drinks cool.

It really took some awareness on the part of the producers to see they really had run the franchise into the dirt with DAD, and the reboot is really the only way to get the Bondiverse back into some kind of balance. Thankfully they chose an Actor to play Bond - someone interested in playing a charecter and not just picking up a check. But who can tell how long that will last?

Hopefully the balance of a Fleming Inspired Script and dedicated Actors will remain in place for now and in the Post Craig Era. In any event, Producers should not be afraid in the future to bring down the curtain on one Bond and "reboot" for the next one.

I know what you're saying, and actually agreed with it for many years, when I thought Roger Moore was the Great Satan. Now, he's my favorite actor to have played Bond.

Ironcially enough, it was in fact the last Bond film that changed my opinion on what Bond movies should be so radically. One man's trash is another man's treasure, eh?

I understand what you're saying and know where you're coming from. I just no longer agree with that view of Bond films (i.e., How can we make Bond as boring as possible and rip off other action movies in the process? Bond should set the standard as a unique identity in my opinion).

JennyFlexFan

There was a dark age from 1987-1989, it ended in 1995 and began again in 2002 onward... Tis a shame...

PoorMansJB

And in a vain attempt to steer the thread back on topic ...

Speaking French incidentally.

I don't mean, "by the way," I'm bothered by Bond--Moore specifically did it, but really any Bond--speaking French, I mean I'm bothered by Bond peppering his speech with French. I don't know, there's just something so nancy about it, especially when used in context with quiche. I can see Bond speaking French ... that is, able to conduct a conversation, just not throwing-in the stray phrase for the sake of sounding posh or showing-off, as he seems to be doing with Stacey in AVTAK. Funny, I could somehow handle Lazenby doing it, but none of the others.