In AVTAK he just looks so old. I read he got a facelift, but his eyes are open so wide in that movie, that it made him look worse. I also read that they try to hide his aging but using soft focus shots, but that didn't seem to do much good. So why didn't they just use good old fashioned make up?
shareThey did.
shareYou call that younger? I think they could have done a better job. I mean they could have at least tried to make him look as young as he looks in Moonraker for example.
shareThe dude's almost 60. Make up isn't magic.
shareTrue...It's also 1984/1985 when they filmed this.
Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3
He looks terrible in certain shots, like when he's having dinner with Aubergine, watching Zorin lead Stacey into his office in the chateau, or holding Stacey after Zorin shoots Howe.
In others he looks quite youthful, like when he's in Zorin's office, or with Pola in the hot tub.
It'd have been better for the film if he'd ditched the facelift (losing the weight from Octopussy was enough) and got to play against an older actress.
Yes, it was hit-and-miss at this stage of the (losing) game vs father time.
I always have thought it odd that Roger looked younger in this AVTAK-related interview filmed after the movie, and presumably with less fx/effort to be put into his appearance...than he did in the movie itself. https://youtu.be/819vnAMjmbk
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.
One big reason not to see that film in high definition...
"Security - release the badgers."
He does look quite younger in the interview. It's the same thing with Brian Cranston on his Conan O'Brien interview on Breaking Bad, when he was talking about the last season BB. He looks 5 or more years younger in the interview than he does in BB. So maybe talk show hosts, have better make up artists for their guests, compared to the movie business, where the make up artists are not use to make actors look younger perhaps?
share