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 » Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite
Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227275] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 08:31
JHause  
....But he's holding his judgement on Craig...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/the-best-bond-of-them-all/20 06/02/20/1140283998325.html
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227279 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 13:56
booby  
""In my opinion, and I think I probably know as much if not more than
anyone in the world now, because Ian Fleming told me, Pierce Brosnan
was by far the best and the closest to the character that Ian wrote,"

Slightly odd comment from Mr Lee seeing as Fleming only saw Sean
Connery play the part. Ian Fleming didn't tell him Brosnan was the
best.

I assume Lee means Fleming told him about Bond (Fleming was one of his
cousins), and based on what he was told, Lee believes Brosnan is the
closest to Fleming's character. But without Fleming seeing all five
actors playing the part, it's impossible for Lee to know for sure.
Also, you could argue the closest actors to Fleming's Bond are those
which used considerable amounts of Fleming's work. In that respect,
only Sean Connery and George Lazenby would be Fleming's Bond because
they acted in films that were close to the original novels (Dr No,
FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS). Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan
didn't have much or any Fleming material to work from so in real terms
only Sean Connery and George Lazenby were Fleming's Bond.

I can't recall Fleming's Bond having an invisible car or making silly
jokes: "a name to die" etc, so it's extremely unlikely Brosnan is
Fleming's Bond - lol! - although Mr Lee is entitled to his opinion.:)

ROTPC
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227281 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 14:46
Will Traynor  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140420662.720471.147900 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> ...But he's holding his judgement on Craig...
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/the-best-bond-of-them-all/20 06/02/20/1140283998325.html
>

Well, Christopher Lee is getting on in age......
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227282 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 15:08
phil.gerrard1  
Will wrote:

> > http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/the-best-bond-of-them-all/20 06/02/20/1140283998325.html
>
> Well, Christopher Lee is getting on in age......

Hmm. Given the appalling standard of writing throughout the rest of
the piece, I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that Lee had been
the victim of a botched editing job. Certainly he's usually much more
erudite and articulate than the strange syntax of that quote would
suggest.

On the other hand, if Lee *did* mean to imply that Fleming had spoken
to him from beyond the grave and told him that Brosnan was his
favourite Bond, he's one of the few men on earth from whom I'd believe
such a statement...

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227283 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 15:31
JHause  
Yeah. The hope is that one day each Bond actor will be judged on their
own performances, with less of the "he's no Connery" crap. For
instance, in the eighties people used to compare Dalton unfavorably to
Connery and Moore, when he wasn't trying to be anything like Connery or
Moore. He was just doing his interpretation of the original character.
Now, 20 years later, people seem more willing to judge the Dalton
performances on their own terms. I think Brosnan's still a few years
away from that, especially since he DID model his performance on
previous actors (although I think that was the filmakers' idea more
than his). Craig is obviously going to be under immense scutiny, more
from box office performance than acting, unfortunately. But one day
hopefully we'll be able to view them all together and compare their
versions for the variety of approaches and enjoy the differences.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227287 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 16:41
Will Traynor  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140445914.889980.163730 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah. The hope is that one day each Bond actor will be judged on their
> own performances, with less of the "he's no Connery" crap. For
> instance, in the eighties people used to compare Dalton unfavorably to
> Connery and Moore, when he wasn't trying to be anything like Connery or
> Moore. He was just doing his interpretation of the original character.
> Now, 20 years later, people seem more willing to judge the Dalton
> performances on their own terms. I think Brosnan's still a few years
> away from that, especially since he DID model his performance on
> previous actors (although I think that was the filmakers' idea more
> than his). Craig is obviously going to be under immense scutiny, more
> from box office performance than acting, unfortunately. But one day
> hopefully we'll be able to view them all together and compare their
> versions for the variety of approaches and enjoy the differences.
>

Not so sure about that. Everyone I talk to - especially middle agers and
up - still say "he's no Connery." And when you try to talk to them about the
newer movies they just compare with Connery and say something like, "Brosnan
was ok, but he's no Connery," or "Sean Connery will always be Bond to me." I
don't think there is any way of getting around comparing one actor to
another, whether it's right or wrong. Personally, when I watch the early
films I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery and say, "That's
Bond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227295 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 17:16
JHause  
Will wrote:
>
> Not so sure about that. Everyone I talk to - especially middle agers and
> up - still say "he's no Connery." And when you try to talk to them about the
> newer movies they just compare with Connery and say something like, "Brosnan
> was ok, but he's no Connery," or "Sean Connery will always be Bond to me." I
> don't think there is any way of getting around comparing one actor to
> another, whether it's right or wrong. Personally, when I watch the early
> films I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery and say, "That's
> Bond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."

True, but I think as wse get into the films of Daniel Craig and
eventually the guy after him, it's going to become less and less of an
issue. Everybody might have said Barrymore's or Olivier's Hamlet was
incredible, but nobody attacks anybody else for trying the role.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227303 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 17:33
Will Traynor  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140452209.121481.102090 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will wrote:
>>
>> Not so sure about that. Everyone I talk to - especially middle agers and
>> up - still say "he's no Connery." And when you try to talk to them about
>> the
>> newer movies they just compare with Connery and say something like,
>> "Brosnan
>> was ok, but he's no Connery," or "Sean Connery will always be Bond to
>> me." I
>> don't think there is any way of getting around comparing one actor to
>> another, whether it's right or wrong. Personally, when I watch the early
>> films I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery and say, "That's
>> Bond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."
>
> True, but I think as wse get into the films of Daniel Craig and
> eventually the guy after him, it's going to become less and less of an
> issue. Everybody might have said Barrymore's or Olivier's Hamlet was
> incredible, but nobody attacks anybody else for trying the role.
>

I don't think people generally attack other actors for playing Bond, but
they have this idea in their head about what they think Bond is. Since
Connery technically started the onscreen persona, I think people have it in
their minds that he was Bond. Everyone who comes after is measured against
the original, whether it's right or wrong. I was talking to my uncle (60 yrs
old) the other day about Bond. And all he could do was reel off Connery
films, like GF, TB and DAF. It's funny how he skipped OHMSS completely. I
asked him about Brosnan and he said he saw "the last one" and thought it was
pretty good. But again, he comes back to the "Connery was the best," line.
That's just one example of many I get all the time. But again, they come
from middle agers and up. I tend to think it's a bit of a generational
thing. Although I grew up with Moore and find him entertaining but nowhere
near as good as SC. I do find it quite amusing how much women - even young
women - go bonkers over SC. The guy just has something the others didn't.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227304 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 17:35
phil.gerrard1  
Will, JHause:

> > Not so sure about that. Everyone I talk to - especially middle agers and
> > up - still say "he's no Connery." And when you try to talk to them about the
> > newer movies they just compare with Connery and say something like, "Brosnan
> > was ok, but he's no Connery," or "Sean Connery will always be Bond to me." I
> > don't think there is any way of getting around comparing one actor to
> > another, whether it's right or wrong. Personally, when I watch the early
> > films I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery and say, "That's
> > Bond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."
>
> True, but I think as wse get into the films of Daniel Craig and
> eventually the guy after him, it's going to become less and less of an
> issue. Everybody might have said Barrymore's or Olivier's Hamlet was
> incredible, but nobody attacks anybody else for trying the role.

I think you're right that over time Connery's shadow over the role will
start to diminish, and I'd argue it's starting to happen a little
already. When I was growing up you really only had two choices,
Connery or Moore (Lazenby's rehabilitation was a *long* time coming).
Oddly, although Moore was the 'Bond of record' in the cinemas, I
probably saw more of Connery's Bond during the '70s and early '80s
thanks to TV showings of the older films. A few kids I knew preferred
Moore, but for the most part, and I think the influences of our parents
played a part here, Connery was our guy, and we desperately wanted him
back as Bond until NSNA came along and disabused us of that notion. I
suspect that among younger Bond fans there's a far greater range of
views, and that Brosnan rates higher with them than he does among us
thirty-somethings. (Not that I don't rate Brosnan very highly myself -
I'm talking generally here.)

I think that eventually Connery will become to Bond what Basil Rathbone
is to Sherlock Holmes: people will still think of him as perhaps the
definitive actor to have played the role, but they won't have any
problem accepting somebody else in the part.

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227305 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 17:38
JHause  
Yeah, I did read somewhere where Bond has the oldest-skewing fan base
of any action series.

But how many kids coming to see CR will have even seen a Connery film?
Or a Moore film, even?
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227307 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 17:40
Will Traynor  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140453504.107697.29610 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, I did read somewhere where Bond has the oldest-skewing fan base
> of any action series.
>
> But how many kids coming to see CR will have even seen a Connery film?
> Or a Moore film, even?
>

Good question. I'm curious about the demographics for Brosnan's films.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227309 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 17:46
phil.gerrard1  
JHause wrote:

> But how many kids coming to see CR will have even seen a Connery film?
> Or a Moore film, even?

My niece's half-brother, who's seven, is getting into Bond in quite a
big way, and he's just as happy to watch a Connery movie as a Brosnan
one, which I think says a lot about the strength of those early entries
- there aren't many forty-odd-year-old films which will hold a
seven-year-old's attention these days.

But what will kids weaned on Brosnan films *alone*, and who've never
known EON to do one of their periodic back-to-basics switchbacks, make
of CR? Hm. Be interesting to see.

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227310 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 18:02
mlawrenc  
>Personally, when I watch the earlyfilms I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery >and say, "That'sBond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."

Mine is an even more sticky routine ...I like Connery's portrayal
because he clearly comes across as simultaniously dangerous, lethal,
charming and sophisticated. IMO That characterization follows
Fleming's description best .

OTOH When I look at Moore's or Brosnan's acting I just think "That's
Moore or Brosnan acting". When I see a Dalton movie I think "closer to
Fleming's".

When I watch OHMSS I think "that *is* Fleming's Bond". I believe him
in the role because he escaped all the hype and familarity that
surrounds the other actors. IMO it would have been nice if Lazenby had
stuck around for a few more like Peter Hunt said on one of the dvd
documentaries. This conversation might then follow the lines of who
was the best Connery or Lazenby?

I'm really looking forward to seeing Craig's portrayal because I don't
know him and it will be easier for me to "suspend disbelief".

Regards,
Matt

"Livin in the gap between past and future"
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227314 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 18:49
Will Traynor  
"Matt L" <mlawrenc [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1140451798.450489.74380 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >Personally, when I watch the earlyfilms I have this idea in my head when
> >I look at Connery >and say, "That'sBond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore
> >I think "He's acting Bond."
>
> Mine is an even more sticky routine ...I like Connery's portrayal
> because he clearly comes across as simultaniously dangerous, lethal,
> charming and sophisticated. IMO That characterization follows
> Fleming's description best .
>

I agree wholeheartedly. No one has been able to combine those elements as
effectively as Connery.

> OTOH When I look at Moore's or Brosnan's acting I just think "That's
> Moore or Brosnan acting". When I see a Dalton movie I think "closer to
> Fleming's".
>

That's pretty much what I said earlier, so we agree again.

> When I watch OHMSS I think "that *is* Fleming's Bond". I believe him
> in the role because he escaped all the hype and familarity that
> surrounds the other actors. IMO it would have been nice if Lazenby had
> stuck around for a few more like Peter Hunt said on one of the dvd
> documentaries. This conversation might then follow the lines of who
> was the best Connery or Lazenby?
>

I'm not so sure about that. If you compare both actors' first films, based
on performance only, you would have to give the nod to Connery. But it is
one of those "What Ifs" as far as what would have happened if Lazenby had
stayed on for another film or two.

> I'm really looking forward to seeing Craig's portrayal because I don't
> know him and it will be easier for me to "suspend disbelief".
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> "Livin in the gap between past and future"
>
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227328 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 20:56
mlawrenc  
>I'm not so sure about that. If you compare both actors' first films, based
>on performance only, you would have to give the nod to Connery.

I guess it does have a lot to do with first impressions. We also can't
forget how much Terrence Young indelibly influenced the young Connery's
Bond persona. Not the Hunt was a hack by any means. People remember
Connery but Young's mark on SC (and the series in general) bears much
credit for the way the *actor* was later identified with the role.


>But it is one of those "What Ifs" as far as what would have happened if Lazenby had
>stayed on for another film or two.


Yeah and what if they had gotten Young back to tweek Lazenby's
persona... "A beard at the premiere. INDEED George!"

Regards,
Matt
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227330 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 21:15
Draugnar  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140452209.121481.102090 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will wrote:
>>
>> Not so sure about that. Everyone I talk to - especially middle agers and
>> up - still say "he's no Connery." And when you try to talk to them about
>> the
>> newer movies they just compare with Connery and say something like,
>> "Brosnan
>> was ok, but he's no Connery," or "Sean Connery will always be Bond to
>> me." I
>> don't think there is any way of getting around comparing one actor to
>> another, whether it's right or wrong. Personally, when I watch the early
>> films I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery and say, "That's
>> Bond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."
>
> True, but I think as wse get into the films of Daniel Craig and
> eventually the guy after him, it's going to become less and less of an
> issue. Everybody might have said Barrymore's or Olivier's Hamlet was
> incredible, but nobody attacks anybody else for trying the role.
>

Especially as the best Hamlet to date is (no, not Mel Gibson) Kenneth
Branagh. OK, so not everyone likes him, and I'll admit his mainstream stuff
stinks (like The Wild Wild West), but I think he is the modern master of
Shakespeare, both as actor (Hamlet and Iago from "Othello" are two of his
best) and director (Hamlet, and Henry V). And yes, I have seen both
Barrymore's and Olivier's Hamlets. But then this is a Bond newsgroup, isn't
it. Let's see, Branagh's rendition of Hamlet starred Brian Blessed as the
Ghost, who was in Flash Gordon with Timothy Dalton, who played Bond. OK,
it's back on topic now. <grin>

Draugnar
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227331 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 21:28
Draugnar  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1140453315.110138.17200 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I think that eventually Connery will become to Bond what Basil Rathbone
> is to Sherlock Holmes: people will still think of him as perhaps the
> definitive actor to have played the role, but they won't have any
> problem accepting somebody else in the part.

They don't have a problem accepting somebody else in the part now (except
for LLC/Scojo/WQ). But, there are times where an actor is inappropriate to
the part, and then the comparisons come out. Jeremy Brett was a fine
Sherlock Holmes, and some (myself included) find his portrayal more true to
Sir Arthur's character than Basil Rathbone (strikingly similar name to Nigel
Smallfawcet, but I digress). But, while a fairly decent story, Rupert
Everett's take in the recent "Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk
Stocking" was lacking the intensity Jeremy brought to the role, just as
Roger lacked the intensity of Sir Sean or Timothy, making him one of my
least favorite 007. It isn't that Roger was bad, he just wasn't 100%
"right" for the role. Likewise, Pierce played it too safe. I had hopes for
him with the intensity shown in GE, but then he went to "having (too much)
fun." I, however, have high hopes for Daniel Craig as I see an intensity in
him that could serve a "007's origins" film quite well.

Draugnar
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227333 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 21:40
phil.gerrard1  
Draugnar wrote:

> Jeremy Brett was a fine
> Sherlock Holmes, and some (myself included) find his portrayal more true to
> Sir Arthur's character than Basil Rathbone (strikingly similar name to Nigel
> Smallfawcet, but I digress).

Does that make Brett the Timothy Dalton of Holmes actors - beloved of
some aficionados of the original but not the public's number one
choice? He was exceptionally good in any case.

> Likewise, Pierce played it too safe. I had hopes for
> him with the intensity shown in GE, but then he went to "having (too much)
> fun."

I think the intensity's there in TWINE as well - perhaps even more so.
For me, that's Brosnan's most hard-assed performance as Bond.

> I, however, have high hopes for Daniel Craig as I see an intensity in
> him that could serve a "007's origins" film quite well.

If you can catch 'Our Friends in the North' before CR comes out - I'm
presuming you haven't, so please correct me if I'm wrong - you'll see
that intensity there in spades.

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227337 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 21:57
phil.gerrard1  
Matt wrote:

> I'm really looking forward to seeing Craig's portrayal because I don't
> know him and it will be easier for me to "suspend disbelief".

It's great that you feel that way, because when Craig got the role
there was comment along the lines of 'Who the hell is this guy? We
wanted Clive Owen', just as Lazenby and Dalton caught flak simply for
not being Connery and Brosnan, the public's favourites for the role.
No matter that Owen, Connery, and Brosnan were out of the frame for CR,
OHMSS, and TLD, IMHO that underlying feeling was still there (or is
still there in Craig's case, although I'm glad to see it seems to be
subsiding as people get used to the fact that it's a done deal). With
the exception of Connery, who at least didn't have the burden of being
compared to a previous Bond, it seems that the public preference is for
a familiar face in the role, and that's something it takes a little
time to overcome. I think it's vital that Craig gets at least three
shots at playing Bond, and suspect that if Lazenby and Dalton had stuck
around for that long people would have come to accept them more. IMHO
even Moore didn't truly hit his stride and become truly his own Bond
until TSWLM, and I think figures posted here recently show that the
box-office returns for his movies reflect that the public agreed with
me in that respect. (Pretty unusual feeling for me, to find myself in
tune with public opinion...)

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227342 ] Mo, 20 Februar 2006 22:54
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Does that make Brett the Timothy Dalton of Holmes actors - beloved of
> some aficionados of the original but not the public's number one
> choice? He was exceptionally good in any case.

I think Brett has surpassed Rathbone even in the public eye,
not just aficionados. That Granada series was a worldwide
phenomenon. I grew up with Jeremy Brett and he's my favourite
Holmes (although I think Ian Richardson was great too), but I
didn't grow up with Sean Connery (Moore/Dalton) and he's my
favourite Bond.

Now, Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee...
--
--Mac

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

"Vargas thinks it depends on the country you were brought
up in."
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227351 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 00:53
timscurtin  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Draugnar wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Brett was a fine
> > Sherlock Holmes, and some (myself included) find his portrayal more true to
> > Sir Arthur's character than Basil Rathbone (strikingly similar name to Nigel
> > Smallfawcet, but I digress).
>
> Does that make Brett the Timothy Dalton of Holmes actors - beloved of
> some aficionados of the original but not the public's number one
> choice? He was exceptionally good in any case.
>

My personal take on Jeremy Brett's place in the Holmes mythos follows:
Sherlock Holmes is the second-most often filmed persona, after Jesus.
At the time Rathbone stopped doing Holmes, there were a TV show and a
radio show also doing Holmes and basically following the Rathbone/Nigel
Bruce formula (imbecilic Watson, condescending Holmes). After Brett
died, it took seven or eight years for anyone to do a Holmes project
again. My opinion? Everybody was just scared to have to follow Brett.
I honestly don't know if he had more of an impact on the film
character of Holmes than Rathbone, but I don't think he's analogous to
anything we've seen in the Bond world yet. Here's hoping for Craig...

TC
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227353 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 01:15
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> but I
> didn't grow up with Sean Connery (Moore/Dalton) and he's my
> favourite Bond.

Yeah, but - and I'm surmising from your Moore/Dalton statement that
we're of similar ages - my recollection is that whereas the Moore and
Dalton films came along every two years, you were unlikely to go the
same length of time without seeing at least one of the Connery films on
ITV. I think I probably saw as much of Connery as Bond while I was
growing up as I did of the others, albeit not on the big screen. Not
that this any of this has any bearing on my entirely objective opinion
that he was the best - just :-)

> Now, Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee...

Naah, Mike Raven - no competition!

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227354 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 01:27
phil.gerrard1  
Tim wrote:

> My personal take on Jeremy Brett's place in the Holmes mythos follows:
> Sherlock Holmes is the second-most often filmed persona, after Jesus.
> At the time Rathbone stopped doing Holmes, there were a TV show and a
> radio show also doing Holmes and basically following the Rathbone/Nigel
> Bruce formula (imbecilic Watson, condescending Holmes). After Brett
> died, it took seven or eight years for anyone to do a Holmes project
> again. My opinion? Everybody was just scared to have to follow Brett.

I'd never thought about that, and thinking back, you're right, which
may well mean that Mac's right about Brett having become even more of a
definitive Holmes than Rathbone was. I don't think there was ever such
a gap between major Holmes films or TV shows as there was after Brett
died, and you may well be right in saying that's because nobody wanted
to follow him.

As for Green as Watson, he wasn't the character from the books, but I
always thought it was a hugely loveable performance in its own right,
so I forgave him a lot. I always liked the Plummer / Mason teaming in
'Murder by Decree' as well: not *quite* what's in the books, but
supremely well-played.

Struggling to find the Bond connections besides 'Sherlock Holmes in New
York' and Charles Gray as Mycroft...

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227356 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 02:04
mlawrenc  
>We wanted Clive Owen'...

Yeah. I was there. It was the Hoagie Carmichael thing. Put a scar
down 'is face and ...A charming choice but then again there's that "he
got killed when he was the Professor in Bourne". It
woulda/coulda/shoulda been fun but...I'd rather give Craig the chance.
*Preliminary reports indicate* he's making 007 dangerous again.

Regards,
Matt
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227359 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 02:24
mlawrenc  
er um Hoagy...so sorry for this page of Italian food
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227367 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 10:46
phil.gerrard1  
What Lee *actually* said, from the redoubtable MI6 site:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=3377

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227374 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 16:57
JHause  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> What Lee *actually* said, from the redoubtable MI6 site:
>
> http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=3377
>
> Best
>
> Phil

"I think I know as much, if not more about James Bond than anyone in
the world, particularly about the characters on whom Ian told me Bond
was based."

That could be a pretty interesting interview, as well.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227376 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 17:29
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Struggling to find the Bond connections besides 'Sherlock Holmes in
> New York' and Charles Gray as Mycroft...

The actor in the subject header also played Mycroft (sans Toupee)
in Billy Wilder's PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. And don't
forget Claudine Auger appeared in the Brett Series.
--
--Mac

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

"Vargas would have thought that elementary, my dear Phil."
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227377 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 17:41
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> The actor in the subject header also played Mycroft (sans Toupee)
> in Billy Wilder's PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. And don't
> forget Claudine Auger appeared in the Brett Series.

Feh. It was pretty late when I posted, but that's certainly no excuse
for forgetting the Wilder movie. Of course, Wilder's Holmes provides
yet another Bond connection...

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227378 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 17:47
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> The actor in the subject header also played Mycroft (sans Toupee)
>> in Billy Wilder's PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. And don't
>> forget Claudine Auger appeared in the Brett Series.
>
> Feh. It was pretty late when I posted, but that's certainly no excuse
> for forgetting the Wilder movie. Of course, Wilder's Holmes provides
> yet another Bond connection...

Binder did the tiitles. And Robert Stephens, perhaps?
--
--Mac

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

"Vargas likes these games!"
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227379 ] Di, 21 Februar 2006 21:05
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Binder did the tiitles. And Robert Stephens, perhaps?

Good grief. I'd forgotten the Toby Stephens connection. I suppose
that when people mention Drew Barrymore or Rosanna Arquette, I don't
think much about their famous families either, although I think that's
for reasons other than pure forgetfulness.

I'm just wondering how Granada bosses took it when the 'internationally
renowned French movie actress' they'd been promised turned out to be
Claudine Auger. 'Hang about, isn't she the bird who shot that skier?'

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227382 ] Mi, 22 Februar 2006 00:57
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1140480926.185868.150940 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mac wrote:
>
>> but I
>> didn't grow up with Sean Connery (Moore/Dalton) and he's my
>> favourite Bond.
>
> Yeah, but - and I'm surmising from your Moore/Dalton statement that
> we're of similar ages - my recollection is that whereas the Moore and
> Dalton films came along every two years, you were unlikely to go the
> same length of time without seeing at least one of the Connery films on
> ITV. I think I probably saw as much of Connery as Bond while I was
> growing up as I did of the others, albeit not on the big screen. Not
> that this any of this has any bearing on my entirely objective opinion
> that he was the best - just :-)
>
>> Now, Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee...
>
> Naah, Mike Raven - no competition!
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

I grew up with the Moore films, and remembered being awed at the fantastic
stunts and funny one-liners. As I grew a bit older I started to realize that
these films were largely outlandish and focused more on action rather than
story. And I started focusing more on actual acting, which brought me over
to Connery's side.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227565 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 17:51
Draugnar  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1140468021.542196.100470 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Draugnar wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Brett was a fine
>> Sherlock Holmes, and some (myself included) find his portrayal more true
>> to
>> Sir Arthur's character than Basil Rathbone (strikingly similar name to
>> Nigel
>> Smallfawcet, but I digress).
>
> Does that make Brett the Timothy Dalton of Holmes actors - beloved of
> some aficionados of the original but not the public's number one
> choice? He was exceptionally good in any case.

Interesting analogy. I like it and it is spot-on. Dalton was very much
"Fleming's" Bond and Brett was "Conan-Doyle's" Holmes. Connery was the
popular one who established 007's screen persona just as Rathbone did for
Holmes. The primary difference is that Brett did three series covering
virtually every one of Conan-Doyles story collections and novels. He had
more screen time in the first three episodes of Adventures than Dalton had
in both of his movies.

>> Likewise, Pierce played it too safe. I had hopes for
>> him with the intensity shown in GE, but then he went to "having (too
>> much)
>> fun."
>
> I think the intensity's there in TWINE as well - perhaps even more so.
> For me, that's Brosnan's most hard-assed performance as Bond.

I would agree on that and it is probably why TWINE and GE are the two of
Brosnan's that I prefer.

>> I, however, have high hopes for Daniel Craig as I see an intensity in
>> him that could serve a "007's origins" film quite well.
>
> If you can catch 'Our Friends in the North' before CR comes out - I'm
> presuming you haven't, so please correct me if I'm wrong - you'll see
> that intensity there in spades.

Nope, haven't seen it. But I watched Layer Cake and I did see something of
007 in him. Mostly the scene where he kills his "boss." Sure, he hesitated
at first, but when he finally did it, it was cold blooded and just as I
would want Bond to execute a villain. Much like Brosnan's killing of
Electra, Moore's kicking Loque off the cliff, Dalton's dumping Killifer in
the shark tank, and Connery shooting Dent.

In that same vein, I rewatched Batman Begins the other evening and the final
death of Ras Al Gouhl (sp?) struck me as almost Bondish. Batman leaves him
to die on the train with the comment "I won't kill you, but I don't have to
save you either." So cold. So perfectly Fleming.

Draugnar
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227567 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 18:16
Paul Clarke  
Draugnar wrote:
> In that same vein, I rewatched Batman Begins the other evening and the final
> death of Ras Al Gouhl (sp?) struck me as almost Bondish. Batman leaves him
> to die on the train with the comment "I won't kill you, but I don't have to
> save you either." So cold. So perfectly Fleming.

Interesting observation. Didn't strike me as like Fleming's Bond, but
now that you mention it I see it. Incidentally, I loved "Batman
Begins"--great characterization and acting, interesting and layered
plotting, exciting action (though over-edited in the current Western
movie style), and fitting score. If this is a model for CR, Bond fans
will be the big winners.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227568 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 18:28
JHause  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Will, JHause:
>
> > > Not so sure about that. Everyone I talk to - especially middle agers and
> > > up - still say "he's no Connery." And when you try to talk to them about the
> > > newer movies they just compare with Connery and say something like, "Brosnan
> > > was ok, but he's no Connery," or "Sean Connery will always be Bond to me." I
> > > don't think there is any way of getting around comparing one actor to
> > > another, whether it's right or wrong. Personally, when I watch the early
> > > films I have this idea in my head when I look at Connery and say, "That's
> > > Bond." When I look at Brosnan or Moore I think "He's acting Bond."
> >
> > True, but I think as wse get into the films of Daniel Craig and
> > eventually the guy after him, it's going to become less and less of an
> > issue. Everybody might have said Barrymore's or Olivier's Hamlet was
> > incredible, but nobody attacks anybody else for trying the role.
>
> I think you're right that over time Connery's shadow over the role will
> start to diminish, and I'd argue it's starting to happen a little
> already. When I was growing up you really only had two choices,
> Connery or Moore (Lazenby's rehabilitation was a *long* time coming).
> Oddly, although Moore was the 'Bond of record' in the cinemas, I
> probably saw more of Connery's Bond during the '70s and early '80s
> thanks to TV showings of the older films. A few kids I knew preferred
> Moore, but for the most part, and I think the influences of our parents
> played a part here, Connery was our guy, and we desperately wanted him
> back as Bond until NSNA came along and disabused us of that notion. I
> suspect that among younger Bond fans there's a far greater range of
> views, and that Brosnan rates higher with them than he does among us
> thirty-somethings. (Not that I don't rate Brosnan very highly myself -
> I'm talking generally here.)
>
> I think that eventually Connery will become to Bond what Basil Rathbone
> is to Sherlock Holmes: people will still think of him as perhaps the
> definitive actor to have played the role, but they won't have any
> problem accepting somebody else in the part.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

That's an interesting point. I'd also add that if somebody wants to do
a pure reinterpretation of a Holmes thriller, the fans are thrilled. If
EON had taken Dalton and, say, remade "Dr. No," the fans would've torn
the project apart.
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227600 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 21:09
Draugnar  
That's mostly do to the time period's involved. Holmes has been a period
piece since the dawn of cinema, where as Bond was always a contemporary
piece. CR the book being only 9 years old when DN came out in the movies
and CR the TV show was done right on the heals of the book, so he has stayed
with the times. Holmes, on the other hand, always has gone around in
horsedrawn handsome cabs, lit lamps to light the room, and dealt with
British occupied India and stories of rare poisons like curare (sp?).
Therefore, a return to pure Holmes is a return to what the fans like best.
A return to origins Bond would upset those who like the literary Bond and
wanted it to be a period piece set in the cold war, or upset those who like
the cinematic Bond and want it to be all action, girls, glamour, gadgets,
and one-liners (the under 30-something crowd, mostly). If Holmes were made
modern but still used the name Sherlock Holmes, the fans would get upset.
So, when someone opts to go that route, they tweak it and change the name
(ala Monk on USA).

Draugnar

"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140715718.722296.93920 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> That's an interesting point. I'd also add that if somebody wants to do
> a pure reinterpretation of a Holmes thriller, the fans are thrilled. If
> EON had taken Dalton and, say, remade "Dr. No," the fans would've torn
> the project apart.
>
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227616 ] Do, 23 Februar 2006 22:43
ahk  
At 3:09pm -0500, 02/23/06, Draugnar <rbolin.no [at] spam.xomox.com> wrote:

>That's mostly do to the time period's involved. Holmes has been a period
>piece since the dawn of cinema, where as Bond was always a contemporary
>piece.

Not so. The later Rathbone movies were contemporary to the WWII era in
which they were produced. I suppose some of the Saturday-afternoon serials
were too, but I've seen few of them. There have been a number of modern
re-interpretations of Holmes as well set in the present.

I suppose Holmes will be forever the movie/tv/radio character featured in
the greatest quantity of scripts done by the greatest number of producers.
I'm sure other characters from literature could have come close except for
modern copyright laws.

Hell, shouldn't Bond be in public domain by this time?
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227624 ] Fr, 24 Februar 2006 00:57
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> Hell, shouldn't Bond be in public domain by this time?

That's a really complicated issue, and it depends partly on where you
are in the world. IIRC, in literary terms and under current
legislation he should become public domain in the UK and Europe in 2034
- the rule used to be that characters and novels became public domain
fifty years after the author's death, but now I think it's seventy. If
anybody has any better information please let me know. As regards
film, I think it's much more complicated.

Best

Phil
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227657 ] Fr, 24 Februar 2006 07:29
Draugnar  
Shows how much of Rathbone's Holmes I've seen (only Hound of the
Baskervilles). I read Sherlock Holmes long before I found any screen
versions. Bond will come into the PD 70 years after Fleming died, so we
have a few decades yet.

Draugnar

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0602231536050.12420 [at] qbbshf...
> At 3:09pm -0500, 02/23/06, Draugnar <rbolin.no [at] spam.xomox.com> wrote:
>
>>That's mostly do to the time period's involved. Holmes has been a period
>>piece since the dawn of cinema, where as Bond was always a contemporary
>>piece.
>
> Not so. The later Rathbone movies were contemporary to the WWII era in
> which they were produced. I suppose some of the Saturday-afternoon serials
> were too, but I've seen few of them. There have been a number of modern
> re-interpretations of Holmes as well set in the present.
>
> I suppose Holmes will be forever the movie/tv/radio character featured in
> the greatest quantity of scripts done by the greatest number of producers.
> I'm sure other characters from literature could have come close except for
> modern copyright laws.
>
> Hell, shouldn't Bond be in public domain by this time?
Re: Christopher Lee says Brosnan would've been Fleming's favorite [message #227864 ] Mo, 27 Februar 2006 16:59
Eric Grayson  
In article <1140739042.632848.181510 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com"> wrote:

> Adam wrote:
>
> > Hell, shouldn't Bond be in public domain by this time?
>
> That's a really complicated issue, and it depends partly on where you
> are in the world. IIRC, in literary terms and under current
> legislation he should become public domain in the UK and Europe in 2034
> - the rule used to be that characters and novels became public domain
> fifty years after the author's death, but now I think it's seventy. If
> anybody has any better information please let me know. As regards
> film, I think it's much more complicated.

OK, I'm not sure whether all the Bond films count as US productions or
British productions. The first several (up until Broccoli and Saltzman
parted) are pretty certainly British, but after Saltzman sold to UA,
with UA being an American company, they might count as American.

Let's take this all with a grain of salt because laws have a tendency
to change over time.

Under current US law and international agreements (GATT):
1) Copyright on a literary work is for life of the author plus fifty
years or seventy-five years from publication, whichever is longer.
2) A properly registered, properly renewed motion picture made as a
work for hire (which all of these films are), has a copyright term of
95 years from first publication.

I believe (and I might not be 100% right on this, but I think I'm
close), that British law says the copyright term on a motion picture is
75 years total, and literary is life-plus-seventy.

Now, GATT, which is in effect here and in most of Europe, gets a little
nuts. GATT says that a movie that was properly copyrighted in its home
country is afforded full copyright protection in all other signatory
countries under the signatory country's terms, not theirs.

So, for example, French law says that Georges Melies' A Trip to the
Moon was legally copyrighted. And that copyright term is life of the
director plus-75 in France. Since Melies died in 1938, this means the
film is still copyrighted in France, BUT under US law of 95 years the
film is NOT copyrighted here.

So the Bond films, under current law, will be protected under terms of
British or American law. American law is much more liberal with terms
of copyright, so at some point I would expect DANJAQ (EON really does
not officially exist anymore) to port the copyrights to the United
States so they get the most mileage out of the films.

That would make Dr. No eligible for public domain status on Jan 1, 2058.

The Bond character would start to become public domain on Jan 1, 2029.

This means that the character could be used in ancillary works, and
Casino Royale could be remade as a literary property but care would
have to be maintained to make certain that the film did not infringe on
the ideas interjected in any of the 3 film versions. Much more likely
would be that you could make new stories with the Bond character.

Eric
Vorheriges Thema:New photo of Craig as Bond - looks hideous
Nächstes Thema:theme song has to be sung by rick astley!
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 09:54:55 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07562 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered