Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Alternate History
Alternate History [message #215779] Mi, 01 Februar 2006 19:03
Min L Shaw  
I've noticed a few recent threads pondering the "what ifs" of the Bond
series, and it got me thinking about the "almosts" over the years. So
I thought I'd run down the ones I'm aware of and see what anyone
thinks.

"Thunderball" instead of "Dr. No," 1962
First, for this to have happened, McClory would have had to have not
sued. Secondly, would the producers have adapted the books at all, or
would they have gone forward with movie-exclusive plots? Additionally,
the costs of producing "Thunderball" correctly would surely have been
prohibitive; given the slow (if steady) reaction to "Dr. No," perhaps
no studio would have been satisfied with a 1962 "Thunderball" box
office return and the series we've all come to know and love would have
died an early death.

Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery in "Dr. No," 1962
The Moore-era critics may be singing a different tune had he portrayed
Bond before the meat of Ian Fleming's novels started to be tossed out
in favor of stunts and dialogue gags. Also, one wonders how Sir Roger
would have handled being 007 at the height of Bondmania in comparison
to Sir Sean. Maybe Moore would have stuck with the role where Connery
felt compelled to depart, maybe not. One thing that has become clear
over the years is that Moore has continued to embrace Bond, where
Connery's relationship has been more tumultuous. (Only Moore agreed to
new interviews for the last round of DVDs, and has recorded commentary
tracks for the forthcoming releases.)

Sean Connery in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" instead of
"Thunderball," 1965 or "You Only Live Twice," 1967
Much has been said over the years about this one, and I don't have
anything new to add. Still, one wonders whether Sir Sean might have
found more to the role worth exploring had he filmed this great story.

"The Man with the Golden Gun" instead of "On Her Majesty's Secret
Service," 1969
Filming Ian Fleming's final novel five years earlier before camp comedy
usurped the series may have resulted in a fairly strong film.
Obviously, the filmmakers, like the publishers, would have been faced
with what to do with a thin story, but by this point they had already
established their willingness and ability to flesh out or outright
re-create the stories. Had Sir Sean filmed OHMSS, he *may* have
decided to stick with the role beyond his five film contract and
returned in Golden Gun. Maybe.

Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery in "Diamonds Are Forever," 1971
While the Moore era was marked by camp comedy, it was Connery's final
Eon Bond film that established the tone. Had Moore been introduced
simultaneously with the new comedic tone, would audiences have accepted
Moore and/or the camp? Probably, but still a question to ponder.

Timothy Dalton instead of Roger Moore in "Live and Let Die," 1973
What if there had never been a Moore era? Would the "serious actor"
Dalton have been wrong for the socio-political landscape of the 1970s,
which some have suggested needed a lighter touch 007? Whether the
films would have found an audience notwithstanding, perhaps some of
Fleming's stronger stories might not have been squandered, including
LALD.

"For Your Eyes Only" instead of "Moonraker," 1979
FYEO benefitted greatly from the delay, in my humble opinion. Had
"Moonraker" not established the limitations of even Bond storytelling,
there would have been no strong impetus to "ground" 007 in the
following film.

Pierce Brosnan instead of Timothy Dalton in "The Living Daylights,"
1987
Maybe pretty boy Pierce would have been too much of the same following
light touch Moore's run as Bond. The average fan may complain about
Dalton's pair of films, but beyond being a favorite of novel Bond
enthusiasts, they served to reassert 007's edginess. Besides, if
Pierce had been Bond in the late '80s, who would have become the latest
generation's James Bond in the 1990s?

Pierce Brosnan instead of Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale," 2006
While it is admittedly unfair to contrast two actors in a film that has
only just begun filming, this is going to be a Bond historical debate
for years to come. Obviously, the producers decided that "Casino
Royale" was the way to go, and opted to introduce a new, less popular,
Bond with its strengths rather than continue with fan favorite Brosnan.
As a Brosnan fan, I personally would have liked to have seen at least
a redemption for the last half of "Die Another Day," whether it was
"Casino Royale" or not.
Re: Alternate History [message #215802 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 04:04
GSHATTERHAND  
Lots of interesting alternatives to speculate about in that post, Min.

Of course, I've managed to pick out one of my pet peeves from the
lot.........Yes, sometimes it's suggested Dalton was not right for "the
socio-political landscape of the 1970s" because something unique to
that time required a lighter 007. All of which I firmly believe is a
rationalization long after the fact. (I realize you were merely
recognizing the debate and not necessarily taking sides.)

The move to a lighter Bond when RM took over the role seems to be
attributed to screen writer Tom Mankiewicz. At least he is the only one
I've heard explain the move. He usually explains it was Roger Moore's
persona that required the change. But EON went along with it so there's
plenty of blame to go around. (And it's not as if I can prove they
suffered financially for it.)

As many have pointed out, that doesn't explain the same tone showing up
in DAF two years earlier with Sean Connery still in the role. With
Mankiewicz one of the screen writers, of course.

But whatever the rationale, filling the 007 films with silly comedy
remains IMO nothing more or less than a stupid, somewhat cowardly
decision that weakened the series for years and gave the original Bond
fan base a series of films offering some admittedly great moments and
just as many dreadful ones. And all the frosting about the "unique
socio-political climate" dictating the change is gobbledygook.
Re: Alternate History [message #215803 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 05:57
JHause  
Min L Shaw wrote:
> I've noticed a few recent threads pondering the "what ifs" of the Bond
> series, and it got me thinking about the "almosts" over the years. So
> I thought I'd run down the ones I'm aware of and see what anyone
> thinks.
>
> "Thunderball" instead of "Dr. No," 1962
> First, for this to have happened, McClory would have had to have not
> sued. Secondly, would the producers have adapted the books at all, or
> would they have gone forward with movie-exclusive plots? Additionally,
> the costs of producing "Thunderball" correctly would surely have been
> prohibitive; given the slow (if steady) reaction to "Dr. No," perhaps
> no studio would have been satisfied with a 1962 "Thunderball" box
> office return and the series we've all come to know and love would have
> died an early death.
>

Most of the underwater photography they would need to translate the
book would have been impossible to do in the late 50's, and therefore
the finished film would either be compromised or incredibly fake
looking today. Bond films needed to command a higher budget before
"Thunderball" could be made in the spirit in which it was written.
Which is probably one of the reasons it fell apart in pre-production.

Broccoli and Saltzman were already working on acquiring the rights to
the books while the McClory was developing JBOTSS, so I don't think
that would've changed. What would've happened is that McClory's TB
would have been with a different actor, ala the fifties TV version of
CR, and not included in discussing the EON series.

> Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery in "Dr. No," 1962
> The Moore-era critics may be singing a different tune had he portrayed
> Bond before the meat of Ian Fleming's novels started to be tossed out
> in favor of stunts and dialogue gags. Also, one wonders how Sir Roger
> would have handled being 007 at the height of Bondmania in comparison
> to Sir Sean. Maybe Moore would have stuck with the role where Connery
> felt compelled to depart, maybe not. One thing that has become clear
> over the years is that Moore has continued to embrace Bond, where
> Connery's relationship has been more tumultuous. (Only Moore agreed to
> new interviews for the last round of DVDs, and has recorded commentary
> tracks for the forthcoming releases.)
>

I don't think we would've had Bondmania without Connery. Moore's tenure
was almost like a reaction to Connery's. (Just like Dalton's was a
reaction to Moore's, and Brosnan's was to Dalton's). I don't think the
early Bond films played to Moore's strengths, which is why they went
with Connery.

> Sean Connery in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" instead of
> "Thunderball," 1965 or "You Only Live Twice," 1967
> Much has been said over the years about this one, and I don't have
> anything new to add. Still, one wonders whether Sir Sean might have
> found more to the role worth exploring had he filmed this great story.
>

It scares me to think what OHMSS would have been like if they were
trying to outdo GF.

> "The Man with the Golden Gun" instead of "On Her Majesty's Secret
> Service," 1969
> Filming Ian Fleming's final novel five years earlier before camp comedy
> usurped the series may have resulted in a fairly strong film.
> Obviously, the filmmakers, like the publishers, would have been faced
> with what to do with a thin story, but by this point they had already
> established their willingness and ability to flesh out or outright
> re-create the stories. Had Sir Sean filmed OHMSS, he *may* have
> decided to stick with the role beyond his five film contract and
> returned in Golden Gun. Maybe.
>

The reality is TMWTGG is probably Fleming's weakest story. It seems
like Fleming had stopped trying to top himself and was just pulling
elements from different books without working them into a strong
narrative (kind of like EON has been doing lately). I think they
would've made up a new story, ala YOLT.

> Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery in "Diamonds Are Forever," 1971
> While the Moore era was marked by camp comedy, it was Connery's final
> Eon Bond film that established the tone. Had Moore been introduced
> simultaneously with the new comedic tone, would audiences have accepted
> Moore and/or the camp? Probably, but still a question to ponder.
>

I think you needed Lazenby to fail and Connery to honorably fail (with
DAD) in order for audiences to move on from Sean and accept Moore. If
it had been a new Bond following Lazenby, I don't know if audiences
would have returned. They might have kept waiting for Connery.

> Timothy Dalton instead of Roger Moore in "Live and Let Die," 1973
> What if there had never been a Moore era? Would the "serious actor"
> Dalton have been wrong for the socio-political landscape of the 1970s,
> which some have suggested needed a lighter touch 007? Whether the
> films would have found an audience notwithstanding, perhaps some of
> Fleming's stronger stories might not have been squandered, including
> LALD.
>

I don't think he would've gotten the part at that time. The needed
Moore for what they were trying to do.

> "For Your Eyes Only" instead of "Moonraker," 1979
> FYEO benefitted greatly from the delay, in my humble opinion. Had
> "Moonraker" not established the limitations of even Bond storytelling,
> there would have been no strong impetus to "ground" 007 in the
> following film.
>

WAY agreed.

> Pierce Brosnan instead of Timothy Dalton in "The Living Daylights,"
> 1987
> Maybe pretty boy Pierce would have been too much of the same following
> light touch Moore's run as Bond. The average fan may complain about
> Dalton's pair of films, but beyond being a favorite of novel Bond
> enthusiasts, they served to reassert 007's edginess. Besides, if
> Pierce had been Bond in the late '80s, who would have become the latest
> generation's James Bond in the 1990s?
>

I think we just covered this in another thread. I think Bond would be
about over today, with Brosnan flailing about in red paint and magic
carpets, doing a Roger Moore impression.

> Pierce Brosnan instead of Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale," 2006
> While it is admittedly unfair to contrast two actors in a film that has
> only just begun filming, this is going to be a Bond historical debate
> for years to come. Obviously, the producers decided that "Casino
> Royale" was the way to go, and opted to introduce a new, less popular,
> Bond with its strengths rather than continue with fan favorite Brosnan.
> As a Brosnan fan, I personally would have liked to have seen at least
> a redemption for the last half of "Die Another Day," whether it was
> "Casino Royale" or not.

IMO, it would be impossible to capture the spirit of the first Bond
novel with an established Bond. If you want the character of Vesper to
have any impact, she has to be the first girl for that Bond. You can't
have Brosnan fall harder for a her than he did for Elektra or Natalya,
or Wai Lin or Onatopp or Paris Carver or Christmas Jones or Jinx or
etc., etc. There's just no way to watch Bond seduce or be seduced by a
woman for the 30th time in ten years and make it stand out more to an
audience. Brosnan's Bond wouldn't be upset that there was a woman
working with him, he wouldn't fall for her as easily, he wouldn't be
fooled by her as easily, unless the filmmakers made him more gullible
or stupid. So you'd have to change all that or replace it with
something else, and suddenly you have a completely different story. And
why do the book if you can't present Vesper correctly? What's left -- a
friggin' card game?

All of the best Bond films have a discernable theme that you can see
running through the characters and the subplots. The theme of both
OHMSS and CR is commitment, and established sexist dinosaur Bonds are
hard to believe in a commited relationship -- the audience doesn't like
the plot slowing down for romantic interludes, and would probably
giggle at the words, "Will you marry me" from Connery or Brosnan. But
when the theme is greed, like in GF, or deception in FRWL, or loyalty
in LTK, established Bonds work great. (Sadly, most of Brosnan's films
are just a bunch of rehashed scenes from other films with no apparent
theme -- except for GE, which I think has a theme of rebirth through
Brosnan, Natalya, Sean Bean's character, and Russia itself. How badly
am I boring you now with my academic lecture?)
Re: Alternate History [message #215816 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 11:03
edrhodes  
Min L Shaw wrote:
> I've noticed a few recent threads pondering the "what ifs" of the Bond
> series, and it got me thinking about the "almosts" over the years. So
> I thought I'd run down the ones I'm aware of and see what anyone
> thinks.
>
> "Thunderball" instead of "Dr. No," 1962
> First, for this to have happened, McClory would have had to have not
> sued. Secondly, would the producers have adapted the books at all, or
> would they have gone forward with movie-exclusive plots? Additionally,
> the costs of producing "Thunderball" correctly would surely have been
> prohibitive; given the slow (if steady) reaction to "Dr. No," perhaps
> no studio would have been satisfied with a 1962 "Thunderball" box
> office return and the series we've all come to know and love would have
> died an early death.
>
> Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery in "Dr. No," 1962
> The Moore-era critics may be singing a different tune had he portrayed
> Bond before the meat of Ian Fleming's novels started to be tossed out
> in favor of stunts and dialogue gags. Also, one wonders how Sir Roger
> would have handled being 007 at the height of Bondmania in comparison
> to Sir Sean. Maybe Moore would have stuck with the role where Connery
> felt compelled to depart, maybe not. One thing that has become clear
> over the years is that Moore has continued to embrace Bond, where
> Connery's relationship has been more tumultuous. (Only Moore agreed to
> new interviews for the last round of DVDs, and has recorded commentary
> tracks for the forthcoming releases.)
>
> Sean Connery in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" instead of
> "Thunderball," 1965 or "You Only Live Twice," 1967
> Much has been said over the years about this one, and I don't have
> anything new to add. Still, one wonders whether Sir Sean might have
> found more to the role worth exploring had he filmed this great story.
>
> "The Man with the Golden Gun" instead of "On Her Majesty's Secret
> Service," 1969
> Filming Ian Fleming's final novel five years earlier before camp comedy
> usurped the series may have resulted in a fairly strong film.
> Obviously, the filmmakers, like the publishers, would have been faced
> with what to do with a thin story, but by this point they had already
> established their willingness and ability to flesh out or outright
> re-create the stories. Had Sir Sean filmed OHMSS, he *may* have
> decided to stick with the role beyond his five film contract and
> returned in Golden Gun. Maybe.
>
> Roger Moore instead of Sean Connery in "Diamonds Are Forever," 1971
> While the Moore era was marked by camp comedy, it was Connery's final
> Eon Bond film that established the tone. Had Moore been introduced
> simultaneously with the new comedic tone, would audiences have accepted
> Moore and/or the camp? Probably, but still a question to ponder.
>
> Timothy Dalton instead of Roger Moore in "Live and Let Die," 1973
> What if there had never been a Moore era? Would the "serious actor"
> Dalton have been wrong for the socio-political landscape of the 1970s,
> which some have suggested needed a lighter touch 007? Whether the
> films would have found an audience notwithstanding, perhaps some of
> Fleming's stronger stories might not have been squandered, including
> LALD.
>
> "For Your Eyes Only" instead of "Moonraker," 1979
> FYEO benefitted greatly from the delay, in my humble opinion. Had
> "Moonraker" not established the limitations of even Bond storytelling,
> there would have been no strong impetus to "ground" 007 in the
> following film.
>
> Pierce Brosnan instead of Timothy Dalton in "The Living Daylights,"
> 1987
> Maybe pretty boy Pierce would have been too much of the same following
> light touch Moore's run as Bond. The average fan may complain about
> Dalton's pair of films, but beyond being a favorite of novel Bond
> enthusiasts, they served to reassert 007's edginess. Besides, if
> Pierce had been Bond in the late '80s, who would have become the latest
> generation's James Bond in the 1990s?
>
> Pierce Brosnan instead of Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale," 2006
> While it is admittedly unfair to contrast two actors in a film that has
> only just begun filming, this is going to be a Bond historical debate
> for years to come. Obviously, the producers decided that "Casino
> Royale" was the way to go, and opted to introduce a new, less popular,
> Bond with its strengths rather than continue with fan favorite Brosnan.
> As a Brosnan fan, I personally would have liked to have seen at least
> a redemption for the last half of "Die Another Day," whether it was
> "Casino Royale" or not.

I kinda wished they'd given OHMSS to Connery. As you say, it's possible
he would have enjoyed a Bond portrayal with some honest meat to it.
Then (the idea you don't go into) would be to let him leave "up" and
give DAF to Lazenby. The lighter-weight storyline would have been a
better introduction to the character for him.
Re: Alternate History [message #215823 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 16:58
Mac  
JHause wrote:


> I think we just covered this in another thread. I think Bond would be
> about over today, with Brosnan flailing about in red paint and magic
> carpets, doing a Roger Moore impression.

I don't understand this position. Timothy Dalton flew about on a magic
carpet and red paint as well. These seen were all *filmed* They just
happened to be cut out of the finished film for time reasons.

The argument that Brosnan would have some how legitimised these
things and ensured their inclusion simply because it was Pierce
Brosnan rather than Timothy Dalton is an unconvincing argument.

When one reads Brosnan's comments about his approach to Bond in
1987 (no different from 1995 as it happens), it's made clear he was
aiming for a Connery-like portrayal rather than Moore. That he was
disgustingly handsome in 1987 is neither here nor there.

Look at the film work he was doing in 1987: NOMADS, TAFFIN, THE
FOURTH PROTOCOL and THE DECEIVERS. All very different (and
tougher) than his television role and deliberately chosen for that
reason. Contrast it with the likes of his making MRS. DOUBTFIRE
around 1995 and I fail to see how anyone can argue Brosnan was
less suitable for the role in 1987. Younger yes, but no younger than
Lazenby or Connery.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas knew Souness' sacking was as inevitable as a Jaws
fart-smelling expression prior to another personal disaster."
Re: Alternate History [message #215824 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:06
JHause  
Mac wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
>
> > I think we just covered this in another thread. I think Bond would be
> > about over today, with Brosnan flailing about in red paint and magic
> > carpets, doing a Roger Moore impression.
>
> I don't understand this position. Timothy Dalton flew about on a magic
> carpet and red paint as well. These seen were all *filmed* They just
> happened to be cut out of the finished film for time reasons.
>

Because they were cut due to the change in tone. They were hiring
Brosnan right out of "Remington Steele," and I don't think they WOULD
have changed the tone from the Moore films.

> The argument that Brosnan would have some how legitimised these
> things and ensured their inclusion simply because it was Pierce
> Brosnan rather than Timothy Dalton is an unconvincing argument.
>

Watch any episode of "Remington Steele." They were doing the TV version
of the Moore films. That's why Brosnan was the popular choice.


> When one reads Brosnan's comments about his approach to Bond in
> 1987 (no different from 1995 as it happens), it's made clear he was
> aiming for a Connery-like portrayal rather than Moore. That he was
> disgustingly handsome in 1987 is neither here nor there.
>

When did I say he was too handsome? I said he was known for light
comedy, like Moore was when he was hired. Have you mistaken me for
Scojo measuring cheekbone size?

> Look at the film work he was doing in 1987: NOMADS, TAFFIN, THE
> FOURTH PROTOCOL and THE DECEIVERS. All very different (and
> tougher) than his television role and deliberately chosen for that
> reason. Contrast it with the likes of his making MRS. DOUBTFIRE
> around 1995 and I fail to see how anyone can argue Brosnan was
> less suitable for the role in 1987. Younger yes, but no younger than
> Lazenby or Connery.
> --

I did see those. He was a MUCH better actor by the time of "Doubtfire."
I'll bet he'd tell you that, too.

But I'm not arguing about that as much as what they would have hired
him for.

It's just a theory. Relax!
Re: Alternate History [message #215830 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:44
Mac  
JHause wrote:

> Because they were cut due to the change in tone.

They were cut for time. Glen has said so. Why didn't they cut
the cello sequence, or the daft parts of the Aston chase (which
are as bad) if it was tonal?

> Watch any episode of "Remington Steele." They were doing the TV
> version of the Moore films. That's why Brosnan was the popular
>choice.

Brosnan was popular because he was the most famous actor the
public were exposed to who looked right for the part. That he
played REMINGTON STEELE on a TV show doesn't translate as
EON were going to make a REMINGTON STEELE-like Bond movie.

It's obvious they weren't when one sees the script and the things
they said at the time.

>> When one reads Brosnan's comments about his approach to Bond in
>> 1987 (no different from 1995 as it happens), it's made clear he was
>> aiming for a Connery-like portrayal rather than Moore. That he was
>> disgustingly handsome in 1987 is neither here nor there.
>>
>
> When did I say he was too handsome? I said he was known for light
> comedy, like Moore was when he was hired. Have you mistaken me for
> Scojo measuring cheekbone size?

LOL. Not at all. You just seem to be judging him purely on REMINGTON
STEELE (something I did at the time). Thinking that was all EON wanted
and Brosnan was capable of playing.

One theory is that his maturity brought about his suitability and I've
thought about this and, with the benefit of hindsight, I no longer
agree (I was glad Brosnan failed to get it in 1987).

>> Look at the film work he was doing in 1987: NOMADS, TAFFIN, THE
>> FOURTH PROTOCOL and THE DECEIVERS. All very different (and
>> tougher) than his television role and deliberately chosen for that
>> reason. Contrast it with the likes of his making MRS. DOUBTFIRE
>> around 1995 and I fail to see how anyone can argue Brosnan was
>> less suitable for the role in 1987. Younger yes, but no younger than
>> Lazenby or Connery.
>> --
>
> I did see those. He was a MUCH better actor by the time of
> "Doubtfire." I'll bet he'd tell you that, too.

I don't think he is a better actor. It's just that you've seen him do
more things. He's no more compelling in NIGHTWATCH or DEATH
TRAIN than he is in FOURTH PROTOCOL or THE DECEIVERS.

> But I'm not arguing about that as much as what they would have hired
> him for.
>
> It's just a theory. Relax!

I'm relaxed. Just offering my own theories!
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas picks up messages from space through his fillings."
Re: Alternate History [message #215832 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:48
JHause  
Mac wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
> > Because they were cut due to the change in tone.
>
> They were cut for time. Glen has said so. Why didn't they cut
> the cello sequence, or the daft parts of the Aston chase (which
> are as bad) if it was tonal?
>
> > Watch any episode of "Remington Steele." They were doing the TV
> > version of the Moore films. That's why Brosnan was the popular
> >choice.
>
> Brosnan was popular because he was the most famous actor the
> public were exposed to who looked right for the part. That he
> played REMINGTON STEELE on a TV show doesn't translate as
> EON were going to make a REMINGTON STEELE-like Bond movie.
>

HUH? He made a Moore/Bond-like TV show. And it was about to be
cancelled.
Re: Alternate History [message #215836 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:50
JHause  
Actually I remember the popular choice in '85 was Mel Gibson, but he
didn't want to do it.
Re: Alternate History [message #215843 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:04
Mac  
JHause wrote:


>> Brosnan was popular because he was the most famous actor the
>> public were exposed to who looked right for the part. That he
>> played REMINGTON STEELE on a TV show doesn't translate as
>> EON were going to make a REMINGTON STEELE-like Bond movie.
>>
>
> HUH? He made a Moore/Bond-like TV show. And it was about to be
> cancelled.

What I am saying is that it doesn't mean they wanted him to
do the *exact* same thing for Bond. Remember that Broccoli
thought he might make a good Bond before STEELE. That Brosnan
was a household name (and public favourite) only added to his
credentials.

--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas wishes Largo had an patch on each eye."
Re: Alternate History [message #215844 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:04
Mac  
JHause wrote:

> Actually I remember the popular choice in '85 was Mel Gibson, but he
> didn't want to do it.

He was rejected by Broccoli. Brosnan won dozens of polls, fellow poster
Terry Hine has dozens of archival pieces on this subject. The mid-summer
reruns of REMINGTON STEELE garnered huge ratings as Brosnan
became increasing linked with Bond and this in turn prompted the
network to renew the show and activate Brosnan's contract before
it reached the 90-day expiry point.

The rest, as they say,...
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas wants Prince Harry as his henchman."
Re: Alternate History [message #215845 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:06
JHause  
Mac wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
> > Actually I remember the popular choice in '85 was Mel Gibson, but he
> > didn't want to do it.
>
> He was rejected by Broccoli. Brosnan won dozens of polls, fellow poster
> Terry Hine has dozens of archival pieces on this subject. The mid-summer
> reruns of REMINGTON STEELE garnered huge ratings as Brosnan
> became increasing linked with Bond and this in turn prompted the
> network to renew the show and activate Brosnan's contract before
> it reached the 90-day expiry point.
>
> The rest, as they say,...
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas wants Prince Harry as his henchman."

Hey, I LIKE Brosnan! I'm just saying he was better at light comedy, and
I think they would have stayed in that vein.
Re: Alternate History [message #215846 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:15
Mac  
JHause wrote:

> Hey, I LIKE Brosnan! I'm just saying he was better at light comedy,
> and I think they would have stayed in that vein.

I know you like Brosnan, Jeff. I guess I'm trying to atone for my
sins in 1987 when I thought Brosnan would be useless as Bond
and took great delight in cheering Dalton into the role.

I honestly think *I* was wrong about Pierce.

Sorry Pierce, mate. I'll buy you a pint.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas thinks Blofeld is overlooking his potential. His idea for
stealing the world's toilet reserves was a winner."
Re: Alternate History [message #215847 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:20
GSHATTERHAND  
Mel GIbson? Popular with who?

I agree with Mac. Arguments PB as Bond in 1987 would surely have meant
continuing the Moore-tradition are not convincing.

In 1987 I believed PB would surely dictate a light, comedic tone. But
all I relied on was my impression of REMINGTON STEELE and speculation
by entertainment journalists.

I too was glad PB didn't get the role in 87. And when he did get the
role in 1995, I was worried. In fact, I watched PB in the gun-barrel
sequence and immediately thought his turn-and-shoot stance looked stagy
and feminine! (I still kind of feel this way.)

But GE was all right and a good start.

I was wrong in 1995 and, in light of what Mac says about EON and
Brosnan always aiming for a Connery-like Bond, I was wrong in 1987,
too.

(PB's performance in THE FOURTH PROTOCAL should have given me more
comfort than it did.)
Re: Alternate History [message #215848 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:22
JHause  
Mac wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
>
> >> Brosnan was popular because he was the most famous actor the
> >> public were exposed to who looked right for the part. That he
> >> played REMINGTON STEELE on a TV show doesn't translate as
> >> EON were going to make a REMINGTON STEELE-like Bond movie.
> >>
> >
> > HUH? He made a Moore/Bond-like TV show. And it was about to be
> > cancelled.
>
> What I am saying is that it doesn't mean they wanted him to
> do the *exact* same thing for Bond. Remember that Broccoli
> thought he might make a good Bond before STEELE. That Brosnan
> was a household name (and public favourite) only added to his
> credentials.
>

You might be right. But as I remember it, they cut down the jokes at
Dalton's request, and changed some of the scenes written brefore Dalton
was finally hired. For instance, the Bond/Pushkin confrontation changed
a lot in the drafts I read.

PS: I was told they actually DID offer the part to Gibson, but he
turned it down because he was already stuck in one series with the Mad
Max cycle of films. But who knows with all of that rumor stuff, even
pre-Internet...
Re: Alternate History [message #215851 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 18:28
Mac  
JHause wrote:

> PS: I was told they actually DID offer the part to Gibson, but he
> turned it down because he was already stuck in one series with the Mad
> Max cycle of films. But who knows with all of that rumor stuff, even
> pre-Internet...

Cubby's book claims UA execs suggested Mel Gibson to him when they
were testing actors in 1983 and Cubby rejected him immediately.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas chopped up a lifeboat to make a raft for Largo."
Re: Alternate History [message #215855 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 19:02
JHause  
GSHATTERHAND wrote:
> Mel GIbson? Popular with who?
>

Are you guys crazy? Gibson was winning "World's Sexiest Man," etc. And
he actually opens NON-Bond films, which no other 007 besides Connery
has been able to do.

I know he looks like the Unabomber now, but he was THE MAN in the 80's
around the time of "Lethal Weapon."
Re: Alternate History [message #215856 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 19:17
Mac  
JHause wrote:

> GSHATTERHAND wrote:
>> Mel GIbson? Popular with who?
>>
>
> Are you guys crazy? Gibson was winning "World's Sexiest Man," etc. And
> he actually opens NON-Bond films, which no other 007 besides Connery
> has been able to do.
>
> I know he looks like the Unabomber now, but he was THE MAN in the 80's
> around the time of "Lethal Weapon."

Remember, that was 1987. LETHAL brought him box-office legitimacy. It
was a hit following box-office disasters such as MRS. SOFFEL, THE
BOUNTY and THE RIVER. He had turned down WITNESS (with old mate
Peter Weir) and even the third MAD MAX film underperformed.

At the time Gibson was considered for Bond (1981-'83) he wasn't
superstar Mel Gibson.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas is irritated that MAD MAX 2 is cut on all DVDs."
Re: Alternate History [message #215858 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 19:46
Paul Clarke  
Mac wrote:
> JHause wrote:
> >>Because they were cut due to the change in tone.
>
> > They were cut for time. Glen has said so. Why didn't they cut
> the cello sequence, or the daft parts of the Aston chase (which
> are as bad) if it was tonal?

HUH? The TLD documentary I watched noted they cut those scenes because
of tone.
Re: Alternate History [message #215859 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 19:52
Mac  
Paul Clarke wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>> JHause wrote:
>> >>Because they were cut due to the change in tone.
>>
>>> They were cut for time. Glen has said so. Why didn't they cut
>> the cello sequence, or the daft parts of the Aston chase (which
>> are as bad) if it was tonal?
>
> HUH? The TLD documentary I watched noted they cut those scenes
> because of tone.

I read the extended chase was cut for time. Why wasn't the other
daft stuff cut?
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas is confused."
Re: Alternate History [message #215861 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 19:57
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> JHause wrote:
>
> > PS: I was told they actually DID offer the part to Gibson, but he
> > turned it down because he was already stuck in one series with the Mad
> > Max cycle of films. But who knows with all of that rumor stuff, even
> > pre-Internet...
>
> Cubby's book claims UA execs suggested Mel Gibson to him when they
> were testing actors in 1983 and Cubby rejected him immediately.

--- There you go: Creative Rights!


> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas chopped up a lifeboat to make a raft for Largo."
Re: Alternate History [message #215862 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 20:10
Mac  
WQ wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>> JHause wrote:
>>
>>> PS: I was told they actually DID offer the part to Gibson, but he
>>> turned it down because he was already stuck in one series with the
>>> Mad Max cycle of films. But who knows with all of that rumor stuff,
>>> even pre-Internet...
>>
>> Cubby's book claims UA execs suggested Mel Gibson to him when they
>> were testing actors in 1983 and Cubby rejected him immediately.
>
> --- There you go: Creative Rights!

ROTFLMAO!

Cubby also had to get approval from UA for Brosnan.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas goes round and round."
Re: Alternate History [message #215866 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 20:38
rbolin  
Mac, why do you say they were cut for time reasons? Perhaps they were cut
because they were deemed unsuitable. Not all edits are for time, so unless
you're the editor or the director, I suspect you don't REALLY know the
reason they were left on the cutting room floor.

-Draugnar

"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:44eoi2F1rup2U1 [at] individual.net...
> JHause wrote:
>
>
>> I think we just covered this in another thread. I think Bond would be
>> about over today, with Brosnan flailing about in red paint and magic
>> carpets, doing a Roger Moore impression.
>
> I don't understand this position. Timothy Dalton flew about on a magic
> carpet and red paint as well. These seen were all *filmed* They just
> happened to be cut out of the finished film for time reasons.
>
> The argument that Brosnan would have some how legitimised these
> things and ensured their inclusion simply because it was Pierce
> Brosnan rather than Timothy Dalton is an unconvincing argument.
>
> When one reads Brosnan's comments about his approach to Bond in
> 1987 (no different from 1995 as it happens), it's made clear he was
> aiming for a Connery-like portrayal rather than Moore. That he was
> disgustingly handsome in 1987 is neither here nor there.
>
> Look at the film work he was doing in 1987: NOMADS, TAFFIN, THE
> FOURTH PROTOCOL and THE DECEIVERS. All very different (and
> tougher) than his television role and deliberately chosen for that
> reason. Contrast it with the likes of his making MRS. DOUBTFIRE
> around 1995 and I fail to see how anyone can argue Brosnan was
> less suitable for the role in 1987. Younger yes, but no younger than
> Lazenby or Connery.
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas knew Souness' sacking was as inevitable as a Jaws
> fart-smelling expression prior to another personal disaster."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Alternate History [message #215869 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 21:13
Paul Clarke  
Mac wrote:
> Paul Clarke wrote:
>
>
>>Mac wrote:
>>
>>>JHause wrote:
>>> >>Because they were cut due to the change in tone.
>>>
>>>
>>>>They were cut for time. Glen has said so. Why didn't they cut
>>>
>>>the cello sequence, or the daft parts of the Aston chase (which
>>>are as bad) if it was tonal?
>>
>>HUH? The TLD documentary I watched noted they cut those scenes
>>because of tone.
>
>
> I read the extended chase was cut for time. Why wasn't the other
> daft stuff cut?

Daft is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Bond sliding down some
telegraph wires on a carpet and a witness to this looking on in
amazement at a "flying carpet" is far dafter than anything that exists
in the final cut. I'll have to watch the DVD documentary again, but I
remember that the scene was cut because it was too Moore-like.
Re: Alternate History [message #215875 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 21:49
Tom Zielinski  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138856258.298897.300490 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> All of the best Bond films have a discernable theme that you can see
> running through the characters and the subplots. The theme of both
> OHMSS and CR is commitment, and established sexist dinosaur Bonds are
> hard to believe in a commited relationship -- the audience doesn't like
> the plot slowing down for romantic interludes, and would probably
> giggle at the words, "Will you marry me" from Connery or Brosnan.


You know, I've never bought this argument. I thnk Connery would have shined
in OHMSS, "Will you marry me?" and all.

Brosnan too.

Dismissing the audience acceptance is assuming quite a lot.



Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that Souness is only as good as his players..."
Re: Alternate History [message #215877 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 21:58
JHause  
Mac wrote:
>
> Remember, that was 1987. LETHAL brought him box-office legitimacy. It
> was a hit following box-office disasters such as MRS. SOFFEL, THE
> BOUNTY and THE RIVER. He had turned down WITNESS (with old mate
> Peter Weir) and even the third MAD MAX film underperformed.
>
> At the time Gibson was considered for Bond (1981-'83) he wasn't
> superstar Mel Gibson.
> --
> --Mac
>

But neither were Brosnan or Dalton! I was told that by '85 he had
legitimized his chances and was approached, but turned it down because
he didn't want to get tied up in another series like "Mad Max."
Ironically his "Lethal Weapon" film that was structured more like a
Bond film than most of the early-to-mid-80's EON project, turned into
just that.
Re: Alternate History [message #215879 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:02
JHause  
news.twtelecom.net wrote:
> Mac, why do you say they were cut for time reasons? Perhaps they were cut
> because they were deemed unsuitable. Not all edits are for time, so unless
> you're the editor or the director, I suspect you don't REALLY know the
> reason they were left on the cutting room floor.
>
> -Draugnar
>

Yeah. I've got an early script, and it's FULL of that stuff. The police
fall into a vat of red paint and Bond says "Better red than dead."
Witless stuff like that. I think there was even a talking monkey
("Octopussy" squared!!!).
Re: Alternate History [message #215883 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:15
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> I know you like Brosnan, Jeff. I guess I'm trying to atone for my
> sins in 1987 when I thought Brosnan would be useless as Bond
> and took great delight in cheering Dalton into the role.
>
> I honestly think *I* was wrong about Pierce.
>
> Sorry Pierce, mate. I'll buy you a pint.

I think you're pretty well right, and I had a similar experience in
that I was firmly anti-Brosnan, based on 'Remington Steele', until I
actually saw him in the role. In those pre-internet days I was
completely unaware that he'd done interviews saying he wanted to play a
more Connery-esque Bond and had just assumed that he'd be in the Moore
vein, and my interest in Bond, after the few ups but many downs of the
Moore years, was at an all-time low anyway. I still think the
intervening years before GE did Brosnan a lot of favours physically,
and that he might have been a little fresh-faced to play Bond, but that
would have been a minor objection. Should he have got the part? Well,
that would have robbed us of Dalton's performance as Bond, something I
would hate to have seen happen, and since it's a purely academic and
speculative question I'm not going to answer it :-)

However, would the general public have gone along with the change in
Brosnan's image? Everybody seems to suggest, and I would go along with
this, that they might also have been expecting a more Steele-like Bond
from Brosnan, and with the series seemingly in decline, would Brosnan
playing against type (in the public's eyes) have turned its fortunes
around?

There's also the fact that the layoff also gave the Bond team a chance
to recharge their creative batteries. Much as I like TLD and LTK, I
think they succeed *despite* the fact that the filmmaking looks
increasingly tired and threadbare. Brosnan has spoken many times of
his admiration for Martin Campbell, even suggesting that if Dalton had
been directed by Campbell, people would have forgotten that he
(Brosnan) was ever in the frame for Bond. If Brosnan had been in a
third or even fourth Glen-directed, Maibaum/Wilson written Bind film,
which I think would have been quite possible if EON had carried on
churning them out through the early '90s, it worries me to think what
sort of shape the series might have been in by then.

In some ways, didn't the long layoff and eventual casting of Brosnan as
Bond for GE generate a lot of interest and goodwill which might not
have been there in 1995 if the series had trundled on at the rate of
one Bond film every two years? I can't help thinking that GE's
phenomenal success was partly down to the fact that people hadn't seen
a new Bond film in years, and that they wanted to see how Bond would
adapt for the 1990s (the publicity made quite an issue of this, you
know, the '...new world, new enemies...' stuff). GE was an *event*, as
to a lesser extent was DAD, and I wonder whether Bond 19 in 1995, with
the fortieth anniversary movie being Bond 22 or 23, would have been
quite as highly anticipated.

Best

Phil
Re: Alternate History [message #215885 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:18
phil.gerrard1  
I was going to correct myself for having typed 'Bind film' in that last
post, but given the context in which it appears, I think it makes sense
also.

Best

Phil
Re: Alternate History [message #215886 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:20
JHause  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> There's also the fact that the layoff also gave the Bond team a chance
> to recharge their creative batteries. Much as I like TLD and LTK, I
> think they succeed *despite* the fact that the filmmaking looks
> increasingly tired and threadbare. Brosnan has spoken many times of
> his admiration for Martin Campbell, even suggesting that if Dalton had
> been directed by Campbell, people would have forgotten that he
> (Brosnan) was ever in the frame for Bond. If Brosnan had been in a
> third or even fourth Glen-directed, Maibaum/Wilson written Bind film,
> which I think would have been quite possible if EON had carried on
> churning them out through the early '90s, it worries me to think what
> sort of shape the series might have been in by then.
>

True. Glen even wrote in his book that when Dalton originally signed on
for a Columbus project, he walked off the project when he heard Glen
would direct, so you know he wasn't happy with the direction in the
Bond films.

Still like TLD and LTK, though. Best of the 80's.
Re: Alternate History [message #215887 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:23
phil.gerrard1  
JHause wrote:

> True. Glen even wrote in his book that when Dalton originally signed on
> for a Columbus project, he walked off the project when he heard Glen
> would direct, so you know he wasn't happy with the direction in the
> Bond films.

I've heard that he's still on good terms with the Broccolis - he was
happy to show up for the GE premiere and the BAFTA 40th anniversary
bash among other things - so it sounds as if the problem was with Glen
in particular. As for walking off that Columbus film, that's one of
the best decisions he ever made IMHO.

Best

Phil
Re: Alternate History [message #215888 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 22:24
JHause  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1138856258.298897.300490 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > All of the best Bond films have a discernable theme that you can see
> > running through the characters and the subplots. The theme of both
> > OHMSS and CR is commitment, and established sexist dinosaur Bonds are
> > hard to believe in a commited relationship -- the audience doesn't like
> > the plot slowing down for romantic interludes, and would probably
> > giggle at the words, "Will you marry me" from Connery or Brosnan.
>
>
> You know, I've never bought this argument. I thnk Connery would have shined
> in OHMSS, "Will you marry me?" and all.
>
> Brosnan too.
>
> Dismissing the audience acceptance is assuming quite a lot.
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski

Hey, I think most audiences are downright stupid! Have you been in a
theater lately?
Re: Alternate History [message #215894 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 23:19
Mac  
news.twtelecom.net wrote:

> Mac, why do you say they were cut for time reasons? Perhaps they
> were cut because they were deemed unsuitable. Not all edits are for
> time, so unless you're the editor or the director, I suspect you
> don't REALLY know the reason they were left on the cutting room floor.

I don't. And I know not every cut is for time. I only recall what I read
about a chase going on too long and needing to be trimmed. That's why
I was under that impression. But then, another poster has said the
documentary says it was for tone. Like everyone else, I've seen the
doc, so I should remember that. I must be getting old.

What's interesting is the OFFICIAL JAMES BOND BOOK released at the
time has several pictures from the chase, including the "flying carpet"
and motorcyclist Eddie Kidd with moustache with Dalton on the back
and is written in such a way as to lead one to believe they were in
the final cut!
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas is the.... Vargas has forgotten what Vargas is."
Re: Alternate History [message #215895 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 23:19
Mac  
Paul Clarke wrote:

>> I read the extended chase was cut for time. Why wasn't the other
>> daft stuff cut?
>
> Daft is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Bond sliding down some
> telegraph wires on a carpet and a witness to this looking on in
> amazement at a "flying carpet" is far dafter than anything that exists
> in the final cut. I'll have to watch the DVD documentary again, but I
> remember that the scene was cut because it was too Moore-like.

Yet Bond sliding down a mountain in a cello case isn't Moore-like?
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas wishes you to know he is a rampantly rampant trainspotter."
Re: Alternate History [message #215896 ] Do, 02 Februar 2006 23:19
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> In some ways, didn't the long layoff and eventual casting of Brosnan
> as Bond for GE generate a lot of interest and goodwill which might not
> have been there in 1995 if the series had trundled on at the rate of
> one Bond film every two years? I can't help thinking that GE's
> phenomenal success was partly down to the fact that people hadn't seen
> a new Bond film in years, and that they wanted to see how Bond would
> adapt for the 1990s (the publicity made quite an issue of this, you
> know, the '...new world, new enemies...' stuff). GE was an *event*,
> as to a lesser extent was DAD, and I wonder whether Bond 19 in 1995,
> with the fortieth anniversary movie being Bond 22 or 23, would have
> been quite as highly anticipated.

What's interesting is that prior to GOLDENEYE's release there were
considerable naysayers who felt Bond was over. One article in
'Premiere' sneeringly made comments that GOLDENEYE might make
money in "third-world markets." They weren't alone in looking down
their noses at a new Bond film.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas knows Souness wasn't even as good as the ball boys,*
never mind his players."



*bat boys, Z.
Re: Alternate History [message #215900 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 00:11
Paul Clarke  
Mac wrote:
> Paul Clarke wrote:
>
>
>>>I read the extended chase was cut for time. Why wasn't the other
>>>daft stuff cut?
>>
>>Daft is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Bond sliding down some
>>telegraph wires on a carpet and a witness to this looking on in
>>amazement at a "flying carpet" is far dafter than anything that exists
>>in the final cut. I'll have to watch the DVD documentary again, but I
>>remember that the scene was cut because it was too Moore-like.
>
>
> Yet Bond sliding down a mountain in a cello case isn't Moore-like?

Not to me, no. But I was referring to the filmmakers' decision, not mine.
Re: Alternate History [message #215901 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 00:15
Mac  
Paul Clarke wrote:

>>> Daft is in the eye of the beholder. To me, Bond sliding down some
>>> telegraph wires on a carpet and a witness to this looking on in
>>> amazement at a "flying carpet" is far dafter than anything that
>>> exists in the final cut. I'll have to watch the DVD documentary
>>> again, but I remember that the scene was cut because it was too
>>> Moore-like.
>>
>>
>> Yet Bond sliding down a mountain in a cello case isn't Moore-like?
>
> Not to me, no. But I was referring to the filmmakers' decision, not
> mine.

Then I guess, as you said, it is in the eye of the beholder...
Re: Alternate History [message #215902 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 00:48
Mac  
news.twtelecom.net wrote:

> Mac, why do you say they were cut for time reasons? Perhaps they
> were cut because they were deemed unsuitable. Not all edits are for
> time, so unless you're the editor or the director, I suspect you
> don't REALLY know the reason they were left on the cutting room floor.

I just dug out THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS DVD and watched the part where
Glen talks about the magic carpet scene:

"The scene got a little over-long and it was one of the tough decisions
one makes in the editing room later on that we could do without it."

-- John Glen

Nothing about "tone." Knew I heard or read it somewhere being about
length.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas does still remember!"
Re: Alternate History [message #215906 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 01:32
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> What's interesting is that prior to GOLDENEYE's release there were
> considerable naysayers who felt Bond was over. One article in
> 'Premiere' sneeringly made comments that GOLDENEYE might make
> money in "third-world markets." They weren't alone in looking down
> their noses at a new Bond film.

'The long search is over. After months of speculation, the actor who
is to play James Bond has finally been announced. The man who is to
play Ian Fleming's old Etonian superspy in the first James Bond
adventure to be committed to film is none other than Sean Connery.

'Who?

'The producers of 'Dr No', increasingly desperate after high-profile
actors such as Cary Grant and David Mason had turned the role down,
have hired an unknown Scot, a former coffin polisher and lorry driver,
to portray the suave hero of Fleming's hit novels. Fleming himself is
reportedly deeply unhappy with the choice, reportedly referring to
Connery as an 'overgrown stuntman'.

'The balding, jug-eared actor certainly appears an unlikely choice for
the role. Friends and acquaintances say that he is notoriously mean
with money, short-tempered, and deeply devoted to the cause of Scottish
nationalism - a far cry from Fleming's fiercely patriotic British
agent. In interviews he shows little of Bond's upper-middle-class
charm, often seeming truculent and short with journalists, among whom
are many foreign correspondents who have had problems deciphering his
answers as filtered through his strong Glaswegian accent.

'Brash American producer Albert Broccoli, whose most notable recent
film was the box-office flop 'The Trials of Oscar Wilde', maintains an
upbeat facade despite the script having been through innumerable
rewrites. (According to some sources, the titular villain is now no
longer the sinister Chinaman of Fleming's novel, but rather a pet
monkey.)

'The omens are not good. Proposals for a previous Bond feature film
and television series fell at the first hurdle, and one senior film
executive has stated that Fleming's novels are not even good enough to
be adapted for television.

'Ian Fleming's James Bond has survived a fight with an octopus, a
Russian agent's poisoned boot, and being keel-hauled through
shark-infested waters, but his attempt to sell this deeply troubled
film to an audience raised on star-studded, high-budget entertainments
like 'North by Northwest' may prove to be his toughest assignment yet.'

Best

Phil

(Being a nay-sayer is easy *and* fun!)
Re: Alternate History [message #215907 ] Fr, 03 Februar 2006 01:37
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> 'The long search is over. After months of speculation, the actor who
> is to play James Bond has finally been announced. The man who is to
> play Ian Fleming's old Etonian superspy in the first James Bond
> adventure to be committed to film is none other than Sean Connery.
>
> 'Who?
>
> 'The producers of 'Dr No', increasingly desperate after high-profile
> actors such as Cary Grant and David Mason had turned the role down,
> have hired an unknown Scot, a former coffin polisher and lorry driver,
> to portray the suave hero of Fleming's hit novels. Fleming himself is
> reportedly deeply unhappy with the choice, reportedly referring to
> Connery as an 'overgrown stuntman'.
>
> 'The balding, jug-eared actor certainly appears an unlikely choice for
> the role. Friends and acquaintances say that he is notoriously mean
> with money, short-tempered, and deeply devoted to the cause of
> Scottish nationalism - a far cry from Fleming's fiercely patriotic
> British agent. In interviews he shows little of Bond's
> upper-middle-class charm, often seeming truculent and short with
> journalists, among whom are many foreign correspondents who have had
> problems deciphering his answers as filtered through his strong
> Glaswegian accent.
>
> 'Brash American producer Albert Broccoli, whose most notable recent
> film was the box-office flop 'The Trials of Oscar Wilde', maintains an
> upbeat facade despite the script having been through innumerable
> rewrites. (According to some sources, the titular villain is now no
> longer the sinister Chinaman of Fleming's novel, but rather a pet
> monkey.)
>
> 'The omens are not good. Proposals for a previous Bond feature film
> and television series fell at the first hurdle, and one senior film
> executive has stated that Fleming's novels are not even good enough to
> be adapted for television.
>
> 'Ian Fleming's James Bond has survived a fight with an octopus, a
> Russian agent's poisoned boot, and being keel-hauled through
> shark-infested waters, but his attempt to sell this deeply troubled
> film to an audience raised on star-studded, high-budget entertainments
> like 'North by Northwest' may prove to be his toughest assignment
> yet.'
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
> (Being a nay-sayer is easy *and* fun!)


Superb!
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas thinks Daniel Craig should read this."
Vorheriges Thema:Gadgety Aston Martin Appears in CR
Nächstes Thema:Pierce Brosnan's "The Matador" expands into wide release Friday (1/27)
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 01:32:22 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05026 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered