• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

Montana said:
I’ve considered creating a conspiracy theory debunking thread, and starting it off with JFK…and my rock solid case that Oswald was the lone shooter and acted alone.

I spent years reading all the JFK conspiracy books, watching the docs, etc etc…and while extremely convincing in the moment, and highly entertaining….once you step back and look at all the evidence in totality….It’s a pretty open & shut case imo, that it was Oswald and Oswald alone.
Click to expand...
The more I read the more convinced I become that Oswald either got the luckiest bullseye in firearms history or he wasn't the shooter. If it was luck it would have been a luckier shot than Barry Pepper putting a bullet through that German sniper's scope in Saving Private Ryan (another feat of marksmanship that was physically impossible, but that was just a movie)
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Those movies were ensembles. He can’t claim them for himself, and people went for the characters, not really the actors.

Name recognition is probably the primary determinant of whether someone is a big star. If you have to say the guy from that movie, that means the guy isn’t that big of a star. Apart from the DC movies and Witcher, which fit in a very niche genre, he hasn’t been in all that much that was popular. UNCLE wasn’t even a hit. Probably his turn in Mission Impossible is the only other non-DC film that 90% of the moviegoing public would know him from, even then, likely not by name.

He’s awesome but not super huge yet.
Click to expand...
Who was Sean Connery before he got the Bond role? A relative unknown. Dr. No was the 12th film in which he appeared but the first one where he was the star and his previous 11 movies, aside from The Longest Day, in which he had perhaps 2 minutes of screen time, were not widely seen. Most of his non-Bond roles came during and after he was playing 007, many directed by Sidney Lumet (The Hill, The Anderson Tapes, The Offense)
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I just think he’s known well in the fantasy and action world, but zero presence in dramas so far, or comedies, or anything else - he’s very niche. I’d bet if asked in private, he’d say he’s feeling very typecast and can’t land those leading man roles in other genres.
Click to expand...
True. I wouldn't know Cavill if his photo wasn't captioned. The last Superman movie I saw had Christopher Reeve in it. I checked Cavill's filmography and aside from the Count of Monte Cristo from 2002, which, if I saw it at all, I only saw once and promptly forgot all about it, I haven't seen a single movie that he's been in.
 
MindzEye said:
Bond was described....in the 50's....as being 6'0 and about 170 pounds.

So I think I've found a Bond built a bit more to your liking if he can pull off the accent.

mitch-marner-attends-the-the-marner-all-star-invitational-draft-night-pairings-party-at-rebel.jpg
Click to expand...
6'0, 170lbs was considered big in those days. Jean Beliveau was considered a big man, "Le Gros Bill", one of the biggest in the NHL, when he played. He was 6'3", 205lbs. Gordie Howe was 6'0, 205lbs. Today they would both be decidedly average. I see teenage kids who wear size 18 sneakers and are 6'2" at 15 years old.

Bond doesn't need to be a freak of nature in terms of height and weight but 6 foot nothing and 170lbs is too small.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
The more I read the more convinced I become that Oswald either got the luckiest bullseye in firearms history or he wasn't the shooter. If it was luck it would have been a luckier shot than Barry Pepper putting a bullet through that German sniper's scope in Saving Private Ryan (another feat of marksmanship that was physically impossible, but that was just a movie)
Click to expand...

replying to this in the True Crime Thread, just so I don’t derail this one (again).
 
oscarheyman said:
Didn't work for George Lazenby (granted it likely had to do with him basically 'walking out on the role' after the underrated (imho) On Her Majesty's Secret Service movie).

But lets get back to "The Man from Uncle"!

Click to expand...

OHMSS was very underrated and it's too bad that Lazenby quit because when Connery returned in 1971 for Diamonds Are Forever he looked like an out of shape middle aged man with a receding hairline. Roger Moore looked younger than Connery, even though he was actually 3 years older than him.

The fight scenes in OHMSS were really good, far better than the campy shit that they were doing in the later Moore flicks.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
OHMSS was very underrated and it's too bad that Lazenby quit because when Connery returned in 1971 for Diamonds Are Forever he looked like an out of shape middle aged man with a receding hairline. Roger Moore looked younger than Connery, even though he was actually 3 years older than him.

The fight scenes in OHMSS were really good, far better than the campy shit that they were doing in the later Moore flicks.
Click to expand...

yeah I like the Lazenby flick, it would have been cool if he continued on.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
I honestly doubt they’d look at it that way.

If Cavill brings a following, he makes it more likely for the movies to outperform. He’s worth the extra money there.

But again, I don’t think there’s any risk of Bond films bombing. If one disappoints, it does so by making $500m instead of $750m or whatever. And there’s also likely intense interest and curiosity from the public to see how the new Bond plays, so that should boost things initially anyway.

The Broccoli camp makes so much money off this franchise that I doubt they would go with a lesser actor to save some dough. They actually have quite a reputation for wanting to get the best guy they can, to make the film as top notch quality-wise as possible. I’ve read the Connery bio, the Roger Moore auto-bios, and books on the producers (original Broccoli and Salzman). Super interesting stuff about how they picked each Bond.

Connery basically came to the first interview dressed exactly the opposite of how he was instructed, basically like a bum, but then when he left, they saw him from the window crossing the street with a swagger that they thought captured Bond exactly, and went after him. Moore was a known young actor at the time and sort of considered, but later got famous with The Saint series and was friends with the producers and again sort of the easy clear choice (bit older than ideal) when Connery was done (major falling out, even sued the producers for huge money and settled out of court). Craig was a guy the Broccoli kids thought was just an amazing actor and so they pursued him even though he really didn’t look the part.

Anyway, all that to say that their camp has always gone with who they thought would be best for the part. And the franchise is really a cash printing press anyway so I don’t think salary will factor in.
Click to expand...
Ian Fleming once said that he thought Moore was the actor who would be best suited to the role of Bond. I sort of grew up with Moore, in terms of the films I saw in theaters rather than the older Connery flicks on TV that were released either before or shortly after I was born, but I thought that Connery was a more serious and dangers mofo than the debonair Moore, who played the role with increasing tongue in cheek humor in every new installment. By the end Moore was a self-parody and probably 10 years past his sell-by date as a super spy.
 
MindzEye said:
Wasn't Roger Moore a pretty significant star prior to Bond?
Click to expand...
He had been the "juvenile lead" in some movies and achieved star status on television with The Saint before becoming Bond in 1973. In a perfect world, Moore would have been cast as Bond in the 60's when he was in his mid-30's. As it turned out, he was already 46 when Live and Let Die came out.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
OHMSS was very underrated and it's too bad that Lazenby quit because when Connery returned in 1971 for Diamonds Are Forever he looked like an out of shape middle aged man with a receding hairline. Roger Moore looked younger than Connery, even though he was actually 3 years older than him.

The fight scenes in OHMSS were really good, far better than the campy shit that they were doing in the later Moore flicks.
Click to expand...
Apparently Lazenby was supposed to be the main lead in "The Equalizer" TV series (though Edward Woodward did a pretty good job in that role). For whatever reason, the producers changed their minds. Would've been interested how that show would've evolved with him playing McCall.
 
oscarheyman said:
Apparently Lazenby was supposed to be the main lead in "The Equalizer" TV series (though Edward Woodward did a pretty good job in that role). For whatever reason, the producers changed their minds. Would've been interested how that show would've evolved with him playing McCall.
Click to expand...
I loved that show, especially the Stewart Copeland theme.


I also remember the guest stars on that show, like JT Walsh, Adam Ant (as a child sex trafficker) and Chris Elliott (as a comedic peeping Tom)
 
oscarheyman said:
Apparently Lazenby was supposed to be the main lead in "The Equalizer" TV series (though Edward Woodward did a pretty good job in that role). For whatever reason, the producers changed their minds. Would've been interested how that show would've evolved with him playing McCall.
Click to expand...

Denzel’s movies are based on a show? TIL.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Which is a better reason not to give him the opportunity to sewer the Bond franchise than how well or not well known he might be.
Click to expand...
It’s not any reason. Every actor has been in films that didn’t perform as hoped. The film is actually excellent, so if making excellent movies is a bad thing, then yeah, he could destroy the franchise. Pfff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top