Broz and Fleming

lachesis wrote:

The biggest change in the films Dalton-Brosnan-Craig are the production choices over which the actor has little real say.

I'm not quite sure of "production choices", but Dalton did have say about the character, no? Or were the producers already thinking about moving away from Moore's light take. But in considering a TV actor from a comedy series, they were probably thinking about Moore passing the baton, not rebooting it with back to Fleming as Dalton wanted.

groucho070 wrote:

lachesis wrote:

The biggest change in the films Dalton-Brosnan-Craig are the production choices over which the actor has little real say.

I'm not quite sure of "production choices", but Dalton did have say about the character, no? Or were the producers already thinking about moving away from Moore's light take. But in considering a TV actor from a comedy series, they were probably thinking about Moore passing the baton, not rebooting it with back to Fleming as Dalton wanted.

I think it has to be a combination of factors, but primarily in choosing an actor the producers have a notion of how they wish to present the role, Brosnan was well known for a certain type of role (like Moore) and in many ways thats quite different to the almost blank slate they got with Connery/Dalton/Craig. Brosnan was probably cast with Cubby's influence still strong, yet he had to play the role with someone else's objectives steering him.

There may not be hard and fast rules but undoubtedbly the most significant influences on any films stem from Director and script, which in turn are here commissioned and formed by the Producers (in the absence of any Fleming material)....Brosnan's input, much like Dalton's or Craig's comes very late in the day and how much or how little contribution he made was always at the discretion of those above him. Equally the influence the actors wield is probably in direct relation to how established they are in the role.

We look to put a personality to our likes and dislikes, but its often a massive oversimplification. Brosnan's Bond and Craig's Bond are in reality not their's at all, simply the Bond they were employed to play, we can blame or applaud them for how well they do this but the fourishes and tone they can genuinely influence are but a tiny deviation from the greater course set out.

Good post, lachesis. I like :)

lachesis wrote:

I think it has to be a combination of factors, but primarily in choosing an actor the producers have a notion of how they wish to present the role, Brosnan was well known for a certain type of role (like Moore) and in many ways thats quite different to the almost blank slate they got with Connery/Dalton/Craig.

There's definitely something to be said for the fact that EON took Brosnan on as a potential Moore continuation and that Brosnan saw things differently. In a way, his Bond was shaped without his input. I wonder what GoldenEye looked like directly before Bruce Feirstein got his greasy four-fingered hands on it.

lachesis wrote:

There may not be hard and fast rules but undoubtedbly the most significant influences on any films stem from Director and script, which in turn are here commissioned and formed by the Producers (in the absence of any Fleming material)....Brosnan's input, much like Dalton's or Craig's comes very late in the day and how much or how little contribution he made was always at the discretion of those above him. Equally the influence the actors wield is probably in direct relation to how established they are in the role.

Cubby gave Dalton a ton of say in where TLD's script went after he signed on, and supported Dalton's specific ideas. Moore's portrayal influenced his films, too. Eventually the old Connery/Hamilton elements were weeded out, and Moore & his films together found their distinct groove.

Brosnan's performances vary from film to film, scene to scene. No doubt that is partly the scripts' fault, but looking solely at his portrayals, where exactly did he want to take the character? It's hard to say. Undoubtedly he wanted to play Bond... but that's not enough. So did every other actor who took the role. I know he requested some heavier material for TND and TWINE - he pushed for the Paris Carver subplot - but when you have such mixed writers, producers unwilling to budge from their New-Moore mandate, and such a vague goal on the lead's part as 'up the drama!'... it's no surprise the films turned out a mess. Brosnan's ill-defined Bond can't keep the schizophrenia together for two hours.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

.........but when you have such mixed writers, producers unwilling to budge from their New-Moore mandate, and such a vague goal on the lead's part as 'up the drama!'... it's no surprise the films turned out a mess. Brosnan's ill-defined Bond can't keep the schizophrenia together for two hours.

I think Brosnan's most acute problem was the succesion of Directors, there is no single crew role that offers a greater influence on a film and, Campbell aside, Brosnan's directors don't evidence any real ability to coordinate a production of this scale or indeed an action focussed film - suddenly, perhaps, the onus falls on the actor to indentify the character because the direcctor is still learning as he goes. Certainly, to me, there is a flip flop in tone for every post GE Bond from a character focus to a generic actioner and back I think it made it far more difficult for Brosnan to get a handle on his role and play it consistently than for any of his predecessors and that the same issue is also, to a slightly lesser degree, exhibitied during Craig's tenure (although stripped back to basics the generic nature of the character makes the individual quirks and elements less significant/demanding in any event).

Louis Armstrong wrote:

lachesis wrote:

I think it has to be a combination of factors, but primarily in choosing an actor the producers have a notion of how they wish to present the role, Brosnan was well known for a certain type of role (like Moore) and in many ways thats quite different to the almost blank slate they got with Connery/Dalton/Craig.

There's definitely something to be said for the fact that EON took Brosnan on as a potential Moore continuation and that Brosnan saw things differently. In a way, his Bond was shaped without his input. I wonder what GoldenEye looked like directly before Bruce Feirstein got his greasy four-fingered hands on it.

From what I know, Feirrstein didn't change much - he was simply the last man on the boat. I'm guessing the "they always enjoyed a good squeeze" was him, among a few others, but most of it was Michael France.

lachesis wrote:

I think Brosnan's most acute problem was the succesion of Directors, there is no single crew role that offers a greater influence on a film and, Campbell aside, Brosnan's directors don't evidence any real ability to coordinate a production of this scale or indeed an action focussed film - suddenly, perhaps, the onus falls on the actor to indentify the character because the direcctor is still learning as he goes.

Would have been good to keep Campbell on. He's the one latter-day Bond director who I think comes close to understanding and balancing the elements of the character's world.

Sharky wrote:

From what I know, Feirrstein didn't change much - he was simply the last man on the boat. I'm guessing the "they always enjoyed a good squeeze" was him, among a few others, but most of it was Michael France.

Only things kept from France's draft were the story and the line about martinis silencing screams of dead men. That's pretty well-known.
Two others worked on it after - Jeffrey Caine & Kevin Wade (no relation to Robert) - the latter not receiving a credit. I don't know what precisely they contributed, but Wade polished after Caine retooled France's original ideas.

Have you read about Feirstein's involvement anywhere? I've found nothing on it myself.

However, there are several lines in GE that could've come from any one of Feirstein's terrible Bond video game scripts.
For example:
"I trust you'll stay Onatopp of things."
"I had to ventilate someone."
"Oh, grow up 007!"
"You'll understand if I don't call." / "I won't lose sleep over it." / "Sweet dreams."
"Do something, get us out of here!" / "I'm a little *tied* up!"
"The things we do for frequent flier mileage."
"I suppose that depends on what kind of weapon you're talking about disarming."
"The world's greatest cash card. It had better not be rejected." <---- oh Claude, does it get any worse than that?

All the adolescent innuendo and bawdy puns stand out like stupid sores on an otherwise clever & smooth script. Contrast all the above with genuinely amusing stuff like Bond's evaluation, showing Xenia up in the casino, the Moneypenny scene, and the first Jack Wade scene. After you look at Feirstein's other writing, it think it's simple enough to spot his work in GoldenEye.