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 » Bond Casting
Bond Casting [message #240484] Do, 16 März 2006 17:54
Min L Shaw  
Aside from the notorious attention paid to Daniel Craig, the subject of
casting has recently been revisited in several threads, so I thought
I'd start a thread just on casting. I would argue that a good cast can
sell a mediocre script, but a bad cast is a liability to a decent
script. The best case scenario for any film is a great script with a
great cast, obviously, and I think FRWL meets that criteria (my
question of why SPECTRE doesn't just have Klebb appropriate the Lektor
herself notwithstanding). GF also has a rock-solid script and
impeccable casting. We seem to all agree, regardless of what we think
of TWINE, that Denise Richards was badly miscast as Christmas Jones. I
have elsewhere presented my thesis that AVTAK's cast (and not its
script) is responsible for its downfall. So, here are a handful of my
views on Bond casts:

OHMSS succeeds in spite of Lazenby (and/or Savalas, if you're one of
those folks who don't care for him, either), partly because the script
is strong, and partly because Diana Rigg is one of, if not the best
Bond girls ever. I know, I know, a lot of us have decided to acquit
Lazenby of the charges that he wasn't a good Bond because we feel the
public at-large hasn't properly understood Lazenby. And, yes, he's
serviceable, but wooden. Script: A, Cast: A-

Someone remarked that TB has the best Bond girl assortment of any of
the movies, and he may be right, but the role of Felix Leiter was
terribly miscast, and the jury is still out on Adolpho Celli's Largo.
Aside from the length of the underwater sequences, those two
miscastings are the reason TB isn't on par with FRWL or GF. Script:
B+, Cast: A-

Much has been made of FYEO's Bond girls, specifically Carole Bouquet
and her May-December on-screen relationship with Moore's Bond. That
aside, I think Topol and Glover were excellent casting decisions, and I
think Lynn-Holly Johnson brought a believable naivette to Bibi Dahl.
Moore turned in if not his best overall, then certainly his last great
performance as Bond. Script: B+, Cast: A-

In the Brosnan-era, the only truly great cast was that of GE. Judi
Dench's M is top-notch, Samantha Bond is the best non-Lois Maxwell
Moneypenny and Robbie Coltrane was great as Zukovksy, and each sustains
or bests his or her performance in reprisals. Michelle Yeoh is one of
the casting gems of the series, but her onscreen chemistry with Brosnan
is a bit lacking. I think Sophie Marceau did a great job with Elektra
and I think any credit for Elliot Carver as a character belongs to
Jonathan Pryce more than the writers. Some of the serviceable
performances in the Brosnan era were Robert Carlisle as Renard and
Rosamund Pike as Miranda Frost, but neither is overwhelming or
especially memorable. The rest were just weak. GE Script: B+, Cast:
A; TND Script: B-, Cast: C+; TWINE Script: B+, Cast: C; DAD Script: C,
Cast: C.
Re: Bond Casting [message #240497 ] Do, 16 März 2006 23:03
akaiser77  
Hi Min,

I think writing is key. I think directing is in second place, which is
a main quibble I have with the Brosnan era. Finally, I think casting
makes a differences.

If the first is great, then the other two can be adequate and still
make for a decent film, in my estimation. If the first is adequate or
worse, it takes a hell of a lot from the directing and acting to make a
film worthwhile.

As an example, I would cite TLD, which I think is, at best, fairly good
scriptwise and (in Krabb=E9 and Baker) miscast to a large degree, but
Glen's direction and Dalton's riveting performance make it one of my
all-time favorites.

Others will, no doubt, have their own interpretations. But I've rarely
enjoyed a film with subpar writing.

AK
Re: Bond Casting [message #240502 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 01:38
phil.gerrard1  
akaiser77 [at] hotmail.com wrote:

> I think writing is key. I think directing is in second place, which is
> a main quibble I have with the Brosnan era. Finally, I think casting
> makes a differences.

I don't agree with this. Compare, say 'LA Takedown' to 'Heat' - same
director, different cast, much of the basic script material the same -
what makes the latter film superior to the former is more money, an
extended running time, and I think crucially, a better cast. Of for
that matter, look at the two attempts to film 'The Maltese Falcon'
before Huston's definitive version. That seems to me to be a case of
direction and casting mattering far more than writing. For that
matter, why are some Shakespeare productions great and some awful,
whether on film or stage? It's nothing to do with poor writing.

Also, it might be a little misleading to talk about writing, direction,
and casting as distinct and non-overlapping categories. In modern
Hollywood, directors and producers either have a hand in the writing
process themselves or they get the scripts rewritten to suit their
vision. It's rare for a writer to produce a script which is then left
untouched or unaltered.

As for casting, the title 'casting director' is a little misleading and
suggests more power than the role entails. It actually amounts to
doing some research and suggesting candidates to producers and
directors, knowing that the final decision is theirs.

> Others will, no doubt, have their own interpretations. But I've rarely
> enjoyed a film with subpar writing.

IMHO you're overestimating the power scriptwriters have in modern
commercial film-making. If producers and/or directors were presented
with a script they thought sub-par, they'd have it either junked or
rewritten to their satisfaction. If you don't like the last few films,
you can blame Purvis, Wade, and Fierstein as much as you like, but
ultimately an awful lot of what you see on screen was done at the
producers' and directors' bidding, and to castigate the writers first
and foremost might be a little simplistic.

It's worth reading the earlier drafts of TND and TWINE, which are still
floating around the web, to see what exactly the various writers
contributed and how different the finished films were from what they
originally wrote - and remember that the changes which were made were
at EON's behest. (In the case of Fierstein's original script for TND,
I think the changes were for the better.)

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240510 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 03:11
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1142555929.567967.252000 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> akaiser77 [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I think writing is key. I think directing is in second place, which is
>> a main quibble I have with the Brosnan era. Finally, I think casting
>> makes a differences.
>
> I don't agree with this. Compare, say 'LA Takedown' to 'Heat' - same
> director, different cast, much of the basic script material the same -
> what makes the latter film superior to the former is more money, an
> extended running time, and I think crucially, a better cast. Of for
> that matter, look at the two attempts to film 'The Maltese Falcon'
> before Huston's definitive version. That seems to me to be a case of
> direction and casting mattering far more than writing. For that
> matter, why are some Shakespeare productions great and some awful,
> whether on film or stage? It's nothing to do with poor writing.
>
> Also, it might be a little misleading to talk about writing, direction,
> and casting as distinct and non-overlapping categories. In modern
> Hollywood, directors and producers either have a hand in the writing
> process themselves or they get the scripts rewritten to suit their
> vision. It's rare for a writer to produce a script which is then left
> untouched or unaltered.
>
> As for casting, the title 'casting director' is a little misleading and
> suggests more power than the role entails. It actually amounts to
> doing some research and suggesting candidates to producers and
> directors, knowing that the final decision is theirs.
>
>> Others will, no doubt, have their own interpretations. But I've rarely
>> enjoyed a film with subpar writing.
>
> IMHO you're overestimating the power scriptwriters have in modern
> commercial film-making. If producers and/or directors were presented
> with a script they thought sub-par, they'd have it either junked or
> rewritten to their satisfaction. If you don't like the last few films,
> you can blame Purvis, Wade, and Fierstein as much as you like, but
> ultimately an awful lot of what you see on screen was done at the
> producers' and directors' bidding, and to castigate the writers first
> and foremost might be a little simplistic.
>
> It's worth reading the earlier drafts of TND and TWINE, which are still
> floating around the web, to see what exactly the various writers
> contributed and how different the finished films were from what they
> originally wrote - and remember that the changes which were made were
> at EON's behest. (In the case of Fierstein's original script for TND,
> I think the changes were for the better.)
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

I think you make some good points, but remember, LA Takedown was a
made-for-TV movie, which in itself means it would get a smaller budget. But
the script in Heat was filled out extensively and much better than the TV
version. The cast helped a bit, too, which may be quite an understatement.
Everyone was very good in that film, especially DeNiro. Actually, Heat is
one of my favorite crime/drama films of the past 10 years.
Re: Bond Casting [message #240515 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 07:22
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>Of for that matter, look at the two attempts to film 'The Maltese Falcon'
>before Huston's definitive version. That seems to me to be a case of
>direction and casting mattering far more than writing.

TCM has done the first two versions. The first adaptation was awful,
featured "a leading man type" as Sam. Actually, the second was pretty
good.

Before you make it a hard and fast rule, think about two versions of "The
Children's Hour" and "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (same director) and "Love
Affair"/"An Affair to Remember" (same script and director).

Not to mention TB/NSNA (same guy playing Bond!)

>Also, it might be a little misleading to talk about writing, direction,
>and casting as distinct and non-overlapping categories. In modern
>Hollywood, directors and producers either have a hand in the writing
>process themselves or they get the scripts rewritten to suit their
>vision. It's rare for a writer to produce a script which is then left
>untouched or unaltered.

Probably always been the case. Still, I'm in the camp that you've got to
start with a good script. But I'll note that a cast can perk up lifeless
material. In the action genre, has there ever been a movie with a dopier
script than "Con Air" perked up by a good cast?
Re: Bond Casting [message #240522 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 11:56
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> Before you make it a hard and fast rule, think about two versions of "The
> Children's Hour" and "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (same director) and "Love
> Affair"/"An Affair to Remember" (same script and director).

Oh, the last thing I want is to draw up any hard and fast rules about
what makes a good movie: I was just trying to point out a couple of
instances which I thought demonstrated that scripting isn't always the
paramount factor. In general, I agree with Orson Welles' assessment
that great films can be made according to any formula you can imagine,
and that even a mediocre script, director, or leading actor won't
necessarily sink a project.


> In the action genre, has there ever been a movie with a dopier
> script than "Con Air" perked up by a good cast?

What I've always wondered is how that excellent cast was assembled. As
you say, the script was pretty dopy, and I doubt that actors were
exactly queueing up to appear in Simon West's directorial debut. What
was it that tempted Malkovich, Cusack, Buscemi, etc to come on board,
given that the project might well have looked pretty unpromising on
paper?

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240531 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 16:14
akaiser77  
Phil,

I don't care about script evolutions, etc, of the Brosnan films. What
I don't like about TND is not just the godawful writing (whoever the
various contributors were to what we hear and see on screen), but also
the over-the-top direction. The casting, I thought, was fine; the
entire half-baked concept of the film sank it.

And to think I never hold anyone accountable for a bad film but the
writers is to misread what I said before. I do think writing is more
important, all things considered, than the other elements--provided
those elements are at least adequate.
Re: Bond Casting [message #240532 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 17:41
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>>In the action genre, has there ever been a movie with a dopier script
>>than "Con Air" perked up by a good cast?

>What I've always wondered is how that excellent cast was assembled. As
>you say, the script was pretty dopy, and I doubt that actors were
>exactly queueing up to appear in Simon West's directorial debut. What
>was it that tempted Malkovich, Cusack, Buscemi, etc to come on board,
>given that the project might well have looked pretty unpromising on
>paper?

For Malkovich, perhaps the chance to ham things up. No clue as to what
Buscemi expected. Why play a vile bad guy, a child molester, if the script
makes you look sympathetic? I found that particularly creepy.
Re: Bond Casting [message #240537 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 22:18
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> For Malkovich, perhaps the chance to ham things up.

Well, Malkovich doesn't always need an excuse to do that... <g>

> No clue as to what
> Buscemi expected. Why play a vile bad guy, a child molester, if the script
> makes you look sympathetic? I found that particularly creepy.

Brian Cox's superb performance in 'L.I.E.' shows how you can
demonstrate the human side to such a character without ever losing
sight of what he is, and it's all the more powerful for it. 'Con Air'
has neither the time nor the inclination for such complexity, and the
net result is, as you say, that Buscemi's character comes off as
broadly sympathetic.

Also, Scott Rosenberg included another 'will the paedophile molest the
little girl?' scene in 'Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead'.
Maybe I'm being squeamish, but I feel a bit uncomfortable about using
the subject of child molestation as nothing more than a way to build
some cheap tension.

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240543 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 01:42
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Also, Scott Rosenberg included another 'will the paedophile molest the
> little girl?' scene in 'Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead'.
> Maybe I'm being squeamish, but I feel a bit uncomfortable about using
> the subject of child molestation as nothing more than a way to build
> some cheap tension.

THE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVED DOWN THE LANE did a great job with a
similar premise and the forthcoming HARD CANDY certainly looks
interesting.

Scott Rosenberg has just co-written a Joel Silver remake of THE
DIRTY DOZEN. Maggot will probably be a kiddie-fiddler in it this
time...
--
--Mac
Re: Bond Casting [message #240544 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 02:40
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Scott Rosenberg has just co-written a Joel Silver remake of THE
> DIRTY DOZEN. Maggot will probably be a kiddie-fiddler in it this
> time...

Oh, hell. I hadn't heard about this one. Coming after 'The Flight of
the Phoenix' and 'The Longest Yard', I'm just wondering how long it
will be before somebody will decide it's a good idea to screw up
'Hustle', 'Attack!', or, worst of all, 'Kiss Me Deadly'. Hate to sound
like an old 'is nothing sacred'-type fart, but my eight-year-old
nephew's favourite movies are 'The Great Escape' and 'The Magnificent
Seven', so what on earth is the point of remaking films when the
originals remain as valid for younger audiences as they ever were?

Maybe the bottom line for me is that if remaking a movie entails
finding a replacement for Ralph Meeker, then it shouldn't be done...

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240545 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:15
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> Scott Rosenberg has just co-written a Joel Silver remake of THE
>> DIRTY DOZEN. Maggot will probably be a kiddie-fiddler in it this
>> time...
>
> Oh, hell. I hadn't heard about this one. Coming after 'The Flight of
> the Phoenix' and 'The Longest Yard', I'm just wondering how long it
> will be before somebody will decide it's a good idea to screw up
> 'Hustle', 'Attack!', or, worst of all, 'Kiss Me Deadly'. Hate to
> sound like an old 'is nothing sacred'-type fart, but my eight-year-old
> nephew's favourite movies are 'The Great Escape' and 'The Magnificent
> Seven', so what on earth is the point of remaking films when the
> originals remain as valid for younger audiences as they ever were?

It'll probably be shot by Jonathan "jumped the shark" Demme to match
his sub-standard CHARADE and MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE remakes.
--
--
--Mac
Re: Bond Casting [message #240547 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:22
Mac  
Mac wrote:

> It'll probably be shot by Jonathan "jumped the shark" Demme to match
> his sub-standard CHARADE and MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE remakes.

And both films can be tied to CASINO ROYALE to bring things back to
topic.
--
--
--Mac
Re: Bond Casting [message #240548 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:29
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> It'll probably be shot by Jonathan "jumped the shark" Demme to match
> his sub-standard CHARADE and MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE remakes.

Demme's been coasting, and getting away with it before people who
should know better, for a depressingly long time. Alex Cox, of all
people, introduced 'Manhunter' on 'Moviedrome' by disparagingly
comparing Michael Mann with Demme. According to Cox, 'Silence of the
Lambs' was a film by a major director who keeps getting better and
better, whereas 'Manhunter' was the work of an 'incorrigible
faddist'... *sigh*...

In the light of 'Small Soldiers', I'd sooner have Demme's near-namesake
Joe Dante remake 'The Dirty Dozen'.

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240549 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:32
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> And both films can be tied to CASINO ROYALE to bring things back to
> topic.

Oh s**t, we've got to tie things in to the topic? Lucky I just
mentioned Joe Dante then...

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240550 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:43
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> And both films can be tied to CASINO ROYALE to bring things back to
>> topic.
>
> Oh s**t, we've got to tie things in to the topic? Lucky I just
> mentioned Joe Dante then...

Despite getting Tim to send himself up, I'm rather worried Joe has
joined the shark club too (have yet to watch his MASTERS OF
HORROR segment).
--
--
--Mac
Re: Bond Casting [message #240551 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:44
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> And both films can be tied to CASINO ROYALE to bring things back to
> topic.

Jeffrey Wright in 'The Manchurian Candidate', Thandie Newton in Demme's
'Charade' remake, the title of which I've forgotten? (I suspect
there's a far more direct connection in the latter - one of the
European actors? - but I didn't want to go on IMDB and cheat.)

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240552 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 03:54
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> And both films can be tied to CASINO ROYALE to bring things back to
>> topic.
>
> Jeffrey Wright in 'The Manchurian Candidate', Thandie Newton in
> Demme's 'Charade' remake, the title of which I've forgotten? (I
> suspect there's a far more direct connection in the latter - one of
> the European actors? - but I didn't want to go on IMDB and cheat.)

Simon Abkarian is in THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE.
--
--
--Mac
Re: Bond Casting [message #240557 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 13:56
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Despite getting Tim to send himself up, I'm rather worried Joe has
> joined the shark club too (have yet to watch his MASTERS OF
> HORROR segment).

I think that part of the problem is that Dante's been overtaken by
events. His trash-culture-savvy, ironic style was a refreshing
alternative in the era of 'Top Gun', 'The A-Team', and 'Rambo'. In
today's hipper, more cynical era of 'South Park', 'Family Guy',
Tarantino etc, his films don't seem as slyly subversive as they used
to.

Thanks also for the 'Truth about Charlie' answer!

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240569 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 23:49
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

>Thanks also for the 'Truth about Charlie' answer!

He did you no favor; thought you were trying to forget it was produced.
Re: Bond Casting [message #240572 ] So, 19 März 2006 02:29
phil.gerrard1  
akaiser77 [at] hotmail.com wrote:

> And to think I never hold anyone accountable for a bad film but the
> writers is to misread what I said before. I do think writing is more
> important, all things considered, than the other elements--provided
> those elements are at least adequate.

Again, I'd direct you to that Mankiewicz interview. With the Bond
films, the writing credits which appear on screen can be hugely
misleading and may not really reflect who came up with certain ideas,
scenes, bits of dialogue, etc. Producers, directors, uncredited
writers, even script girls and production designers have made
unacknowledged and quite major contributions to the films at the story
and script level. I think you might be apportioning credit and blame a
little too easily here, which is why I pointed you towards the earlier
drafts of the Brosnan movies. I mean, to me there's no question that
Fierstein is a poor Bond writer: his early draft scripts seem to bear
that out. Purvis and Wade's first crack at TWINE, on the other hand,
seems to me superior to what eventually reached the screen.

For the most part I think dividing the EON crew into good guys (Cubby,
Maibaum) and bad guys (Wood, Mankiewicz) is a tad simplistic, as is
placing the most of the blame for a Bond film squarely at the door of
the people credited with the screenplay.

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240576 ] So, 19 März 2006 06:00
akaiser77  
Phil,

I realize that the Bond films have a number of fingers in the
screenwriting pie. Fierstein strikes me as particularly egregious,
along with Mankiewicz and Wood, but there are a number of different
contributors whose names we don't see in the credits who give us
moments we don't like. I also don't think Cubby was simply a "good
guy" as far the Bond series was concerned--he was, after all, the
driving force behind stuff like DAF and MR, so his judgment could go
very far astray, IMO.

I think Lorenzo Semple, Jr.'s script for NSNA was excellent--as good or
better than any of the EON scripts of the 80s (certainly better than
AVTAK and TLD's scripts, at least to me). It had excellent one-liners,
was coherently constructed, and evidenced a real understanding of the
Bond formula, even though it was McClory's project. And again, there
were a number of different contributors on that one, too--including, I
believe, Connery himself. Sometimes these collaborations work;
sometimes they don't. However, I think that a bad script is just about
the worst possible starting point for a film.

AK
Re: Bond Casting [message #240580 ] So, 19 März 2006 12:58
phil.gerrard1  
akaiser77 [at] hotmail.com wrote:

> And again, there
> were a number of different contributors on that one, too--including, I
> believe, Connery himself.

And, of course, Connery's script-polishers by appointment Dick Clement
and Ian La Frenais (the urine sample gag is lifted almost verbatim from
an episode of 'Porridge').

Best

Phil
Re: Bond Casting [message #240702 ] Mo, 20 März 2006 23:08
Draugnar  
"Min L Shaw" <minlshaw [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142528085.171440.221980 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Aside from the notorious attention paid to Daniel Craig, the subject of
> casting has recently been revisited in several threads, so I thought
> I'd start a thread just on casting. I would argue that a good cast can
> sell a mediocre script, but a bad cast is a liability to a decent
> script. The best case scenario for any film is a great script with a
> great cast, obviously, and I think FRWL meets that criteria (my
> question of why SPECTRE doesn't just have Klebb appropriate the Lektor
> herself notwithstanding). GF also has a rock-solid script and
> impeccable casting. We seem to all agree, regardless of what we think
> of TWINE, that Denise Richards was badly miscast as Christmas Jones. I
> have elsewhere presented my thesis that AVTAK's cast (and not its
> script) is responsible for its downfall. So, here are a handful of my
> views on Bond casts:

Just a quick note on SPECTRE and the Lektor... They clearly want the
Russians to blame the Brits and they consider it a bonus that they'll get a
shot at 007. It isn't about the Lektor, per se, but about the havoc they
can reek by getting the cold war stirred up that much more.
Vorheriges Thema:hi, I,m new in this group and have some 007boardgame questions
Nächstes Thema:Bond scores (following up on John Barry and CR theme threads)
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 20:59:06 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06557 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered