Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Why did they not replace Roger Moore in 1980?
Roger Moore was signed to three film contract, with an option to a 4th, which he fulfilled after moonraker. The producers ended up going back to roger three additional times after that, rather than replacing him when Moore, himself, thinks they should have. Roger Moore was ready to go after moonraker, but more money kept being thrown at him. My question, why? Was cubby scared to replace him after the lazenby fiasco?
Discuss
Discuss
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think money talks. Moonraker was an absolute box office smash in 1979 and the highest grossing film worldwide ($210M unadjusted) for that year (so it did better than SF did in 2012 relatively speaking in terms of yearly rank). Moore was well established in the role and easy to work with. Cubby and he got along very well. He only wanted more money all the time.
Some of the names that were bandied about then to replace Moore (and I can't remember them all but Lewis Collins and James Brolin come to mind) would not have been able to keep the franchise alive. The early 80's were a difficult time for Bond so in a way it's good Moore stuck around IMO. At least he was bankable.
It's very difficult to just let go of a box office draw like that.
Maybe because Live and Let Die didn't do so bad in the box office and that they still had hope for him as bond after Golden Gun. They might as well use him for the 1 more film he is under contract for and if TSWLM does shit at the box office then ditch him.
Also Daltons contract expired in 1994 and Dalton chose to leave Bond.
No kidding.
Proof that EON is not perfect.
LALD did alot more than just "not bad". Adjusted for inflation it grossed over $671 million. Compare that to the $411 million OHMSS grossed only 4 years prior. Clearly audiences liked Moore as Bond.
Then take into account the $721,380 mil TSWLM made and MR being the highest grossing film of 1979, it would've made no business sense to not try to get Moore to do another film. As a matter of fact, adjusted for 2014 dollars, LADL, TSWLM, and MR all outgrossed all of Brosnan's movies. While the TSWLM and MR outgrossed Craig's first two films. Say what you will about him but Moore put butts in seats during the 70s.
Because, in all honesty. I think Roger Moore made his best films with "Octopussy" and especially "For Your Eyes Only". Those were more realistic Cold War-esque spy thrillers in which -apart from the clown suit- Bond was emotionally more multi-layered and at times also a very cold blooded killer.
So lesson to be learnt: Keep the Bond actor once he is a proven success and even if you can do so much more with him after 4 films :-).
I feel the same way. Although TSWLM and MR are considered Moore's peak from a commercial stand-point, to me FYEO and Octopussy were hands down his best films. I didn't even care that he was getting on in age. To me Octopussy would've been the perfect movie for Moore to retire on.
It's just too bad that Lazenby was an idiot, or we would have been treated to more of him and Peter Hunt in the 1970's/early '80's, which is easily the worst decade for Bond films in terms of quality. An increasingly older Moore hitting on increasingly younger women, more and more comedy inserted into the films to bring them on par with the Pink Panther films, the lessening of jeopardy to the point where cartoon gags were commonplace, the series basically became a joke, being passed by the Lucas/Spielberg/ Scott/Cameron films as the blockbusters of the decade.
There's a reason that Sean Connery was Indy's dad, not the soft, pithy and comedic Moore.
Connery meant adventure. Moore meant a laugh.
Completely agree. He would have gone out on an all time high having beaten Connery at the box office. Shame he stayed on for AVTAK.
Being a fan of Warbeck, I think he would have made a fine Bond. He had the right look, and charisma in spades.
Im happy Roger Moore played Bond for as along as he did. Im one of the few who loved it that it did AVTAK. Rogers run has Bond is the 1 run I wouldn't change anything about. I thought all 7 movies he did were perfect for him and the series.
I guess you missed the part where MR was the highest grossing film of the year.
Agreed. While his tenure may not hit the highs with quite the same frequency as the early connery's, they're pretty damn consistent and every one of them is hugely entertaining to me. If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel.
Exactly. There are so many things I would change about the Connery films, Dalton, and Pierce to make them better. Moores movies I wouldn't change anything.
A good point. Even with Connery there were marked differences between the cinematic and literary Bond characters. The last few novels after the films Fleming did change the character a bit to fit the films more. But at least with the early novels there were virtually no one-liners and Bond has a lot more trepidation about his job and killing than Connery ever does. "That's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six" is not a line that would appear in Fleming.
[/quote]Im happy Roger Moore played Bond for as along as he did. Im one of the few who loved it that it did AVTAK. Rogers run has Bond is the 1 run I wouldn't change anything about. I thought all 7 movies he did were perfect for him and the series. [/quote]
Agreed. While his tenure may not hit the highs with quite the same frequency as the early connery's, they're pretty damn consistent and every one of them is hugely entertaining to me. If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel. [/quote]
Exactly. There are so many things I would change about the Connery films, Dalton, and Pierce to make them better. Moores movies I wouldn't change anything. [/quote]
Yes, they were consistent, all right, consistently bad. It's the worst reviewed stretch of Bond films, and it took the series three decades to recover. He turned Bond into a comedy, a parody.
There's things I'd change about the COnnery films. What's your point? Moore's films are still mediocre films AT BEST.
I got nothing on AVTAK though. Perhaps it's a sign of a lack of faith in the film that they preferred to keep Moore as an asset. Perhaps they run out of time and auditioning other actors wasn't going as fast as it should. I don't know. It's a troubled film and I would have preferred OP to be Moore's swansong.
Wait a minute, that 'you've had you six' is a really cool line. One of the best in the series. Does Moore have any cool moments using his license to kill?
Oh wait, flipping Jaws out the window like he did to Tee Hee, that's right.