Why Can't They Have A Decent Swansong?

Hey everyone,

Well, I've been tinkering with the idea of making this thread for a while now, but thought that I better wait until it was confirmed that Brosnan isn't coming back. Haven't you noticed that, unfortunately, every Bond actor's swansong film has been either universally ciriticised, or {at best} highly controversial? I just think that it's a real shame, because it sort of undermines any excellent entries that the actors were perhaps involved with. Let's review, shall we?

Sean Connery - Ended his Bondian career with "DAF", which many people thought was too camp, and had an ineffectual villain and an uninspired plot. And let us not forget that it was THIS film {and not "LALD", as is commonly believed} that heralded the start of a more slapstick direction for the franchise that lasted up until "TLD" {a decision which was, IMHO, woefully misguided}. Even if we're counting the unofficial movie entries, "NSNA" was hardly much better, featuring a re-hashed plot and often ropey FX. It probably would've been best if Connery hadn't returned following his fifth outing as Bond {which was at least a fun, if gadget laden, affair}.

George Lazenby - His swansong {and debut} was, of course, "OHMSS". While it certainly wasn't universally panned by critics and fans alike, most people seem to agree that it was just too serious, and too downbeat a film. And with just one outing as 007 to his name, perhaps people just didn't have time to accept Lazenby in the role?

Roger Moore - Ended his whopping 7 film run with "AVTOK". Although Moore had certainly made a number of overtly slapstick films during his time {"Moonraker" springs to mind}, this was just going a bit too far. At 57, Moore was also starting to really show his age ...

Hold up a bit before replying; more to come ...

Timothy Dalton - Finished his run with "LTK". Personally, I loved "Licence To Kill", and thought that it was a fantastic film; IMHO, this is perhaps the best of all the Bond swansongs. However, I do realise that not everyone appreciated the more serious, downbeat, and realistic tone that was brought to the film {as it perhaps deviated too far from the established formula}. And so, like "OHMSS", I'd have to label this as a controversial entry at best.

Pierce Brosnan - His Bondian swansong was, of course, "DAD" {the most recent film in the series}. What can I say? Most people tend to agree that, after about 20 minutes {i.e. following the excellent torture sequence} the film just became far too OTT for everyone's liking with its space weapon, invisible car, inappropriate slo-mo bits, and Halle Berry as the worst punner in the world {"I think I got the THRUST of it!" Get it? THRUST! Ha ha ha!}. And as for its "cutting edge" CGI? There are FX in "Dr. no" that are more convincing than that parasailing sequence ...

Sorry once again for the overlong double post; do you any of you guys agree with me?

DaD was horrible.

plus i think it goes otherwise..
coz movies were poor they stoped being bond. 😬

Do you mean to say that the movie following each Bond's departure was poor? I'll give you "DAF" {which followed Lazenby's departure}, but what about "LALD" {post Connery}? What about "TLD" {post Moore}? What about "GE" {post Dalton}?

All of Brosnan's Bond's are sorta forgettable because neither one of them had a memorable villain.

NO.
i mean that because the last movie they made was poor they didn't keep on performing as bond.

DaD was pointless stupid and pathetic and contract with pierce wasn't re-signed.

do you see my point?

Originally posted by Reborn Again
All of Brosnan's Bond's are sorta forgettable because neither one of them had a memorable villain.

True, but what about "GE"?

Originally posted by Clovie
I mean that because the last movie they made was poor they didn't keep on performing as bond.

DAD was pointless stupid and pathetic and contract with pierce wasn't re-signed.

Do you see my point?

I get ya {sorry for the misunderstanding before}, but I'm not sure that I entirely agree with ya.

First of all, it's been well publicised that Connery was beginning to get sick of the role from about "Thunderball" onwards {primarily because of the overwhelming publicity surrounding them, and due to his detiorating relationship with Brocolli}; you can even tell that he had had enough from his performances as the movies went on. He did five because it was stated in his contract, but he could've jumped ship at that point if he really felt strongly about their being an over-reliance on gadgetry in the movies. He did "DAF" purely for charitable reasons {he donated his entire paycheck, including his gross of the movie's profits, to Scottish orphans}, and so I'm sure that he would've done more {regardless of quality} had the producers simply paid him enough. Besides, he still went on to do "NSNA" afterwards, didn't he?

As for Lazenby, I'm pretty sure that he only ever wanted to do the one movie for fear of being typecast; in fact, in recent interviews he has stated that he regrets not doing more ...

In regards to Moore, he had {let's face it} done his fair share of less than stellar Bond films, and so I don't think that quality was really an issue for him. Perhaps he just felt that, with 7 films under his belt {and at the age of 57} it was time to move on ...

More to come ...

As for Dalton, I'm fairly certain that he DID initially want to do more Bond films after "LTK", but ultimately chose not to due to the large amount of time that passed between "LTK" and "GE". He parted on amicable terms from the series ...

Finally, it has also been well publicised that, given the right salary, Brosnan would've liked to have returned for a final, fifth outing as Bond. But as we all know, "Casino Royale" needed somebody younger ...

but i mean it otherwise cry
the producers didn't want actors anymore, not actors the role bag

i'm not gonna try to explain anything anymore.

I'm sorry - I really don't understand what you're saying then ...

i know. i have problems with explaining things. 🙁

And I have a problem with understanding things. Fancy that ...

okay.
my last try. if you don't understand we'll forget about my stupid ideas, ok?

their last movies was poor because they wasn't given occasion to make another ones.
because movies were sucky the actors got fired.

Hang on a second, though; with the exception of Pierce Brosnan, I don't think that any of the other Bond actors were fired from the part. I've explained some of this in an earlier post of mine ...

i know. but you don't know if they weren't suggest to leave 🥷

True, I suppose we can't know for certain. But would it really make that much sense to fire people as popular as Connery or Moore? I can more easily believe that the producers begged them to stay!

And look at Pierce Brosnan - he's been very vocal about the fact that he was fired from the role {though not necessarily in a rude way}. If one or more of the other actors had also been fired, why would they choose to keep shtum about it?

they've paid them something to make them quiet?

ermm..i don't know i'm just making up conspiracy theories 🥷

Erm, I dunno why they'd go to all that trouble just to shut them up ...

coz they want to rule the world 😱