› ›

Why did they not replace Roger Moore in 1980?

1…7891012

Comments

  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    He Neilled it.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited February 2015 Posts: 1,778
    Ludovico wrote: »
    FYEO would have been the perfect first Bond movie for a new actor. But I don't think anybody else than Rog could have pulled off OP, especially the bomb scene.

    I've said before that FYEO is essentially a Bond debut that we never got. And it would've fit in with the trend in the Bond series with a new actor debuting in a serious Flemingesque movie after a big budget OTT extravaganza (ala OHMSS after YOLT and CR after DAD). FYEO is strange because it brings Bond back to a more serious setting only to immediately go back to the usual Moore shtick with Octopussy. Of all Moore's films FYEO feels like the one that Moore wasn't supposed to be in.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    It was a perfect opportunity, but cubby chickened out.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Sam Neill as James Bond is just silly.

    I agree.
    I LOVE Sam, but as Bond he would have failed BIG TIME. Best leave him to Jurassic Park where he ROCKED! \m/
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hate JURASSIC PARK.
    We are in a lot of agreement lately.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    It was a perfect opportunity, but cubby chickened out.

    Although debuting a new Bond in FYEO at the start of the 80s would've made sense and in my opinion would've even made for a better debut film for Timothy Dalton than TLD, at the same time FYEO and Octopussy are my two favorite Roger Moore films and performances and I wouldn't trade them for anything.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hate JURASSIC PARK.
    We are in a lot of agreement lately.

    You two must both be thinking of Jurassic Park 3 - also featuring Sam Neil.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,722
    My favorite Sam Neill movie is 'The Hunter' although it is the main actor, Willem Dafoe, who steals the show.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Moore was never comfortable playing the tougher, rougher elements of the character. His stubborn refusal to kick that bad guy in the car off the cliff is galling. That's the character! He didn't like being rough with Maud Adams in the man with the golden gun, either. You're playing a bastard, roger. I'm sorry that conflicts with the jimmy bond show that you headlined for 12 long agonizing years.
    Dalton should've been courted from the set of Flash Gordon and gone after like they later did with daniel Craig. The 80s bonds would've been better off without the grim reaper
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,357
    I'd happily take Roger over James Brolin and Sam Neill. His films were fun.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,218
    I often wonder about Ray Lonnen as Bond in FYEO. It would also have been the.perfect debut for Dalton.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Moore was never comfortable playing the tougher, rougher elements of the character. His stubborn refusal to kick that bad guy in the car off the cliff is galling. That's the character! He didn't like being rough with Maud Adams in the man with the golden gun, either.

    Refusal? He did it didn't he?
    He also mercilessly shot Stromberg several times despite it being unnecessary.
    He killed the twins in OP without mercy.
    He showed a very cold and ruthless streak in several scenes in his first two films.

    The films highlighted the comedy element of the series, yes, but you rarely see Moore himself goofing around - with the honourable exception of the fire engine sequence in AVTAK ;-)
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I think those who blame Moore for the "silly" parts of the films, Give him credit
    For far more power than I think he had. The silly/fun element was agreed to and
    Placed into script and film by producers and directors.
    Roger couldn't force these things in, it's also well noted that he didn't want to
    Wear the clown suit ! But he's a professional so did as asked. :)
  • jobojobo
    edited February 2015 Posts: 7,507
    I agree. If I'd bothered to point fingers, I think Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz (how do you prounounce the name again...?) were far more responsible for the silly direction the series took. The silliness in Diamonds Are Forever at least equals all of the goofiest moments we got in the Moore era for example.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Yes, I too have said in the past that DAF. Was when the change happened. Even if
    Connery had stayed on, we'd still have got the double taking pigeons etc. After
    OHMSS, I think the producers thought seriousness was out of favour with
    Audiences, so went for "Fun" , in fact you could see a change in direction with
    YOLT, it's very different in tone to FRWL or DN.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited February 2015 Posts: 5,080
    For me, the silliness had started to creep in with Goldfinger (machine gun toting grannies and seagull hats anyone?), and would last until DAD with the exceptions of OHMSS, TLD and LTK.
  • jobojobo
    edited February 2015 Posts: 7,507
    Yes, I'd say the chain reaction started with Goldfinger too, getting progressively more outlandish as the series progressed. And much of it was down to Hamilton's personal style and ideas. And no matter what you think of it, it did Catch on. The public craved it and the producers delivered. The people with the real power is always the audience. "Its the fiirst rule of mass media: Give the people what they want."
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I know it gets castigated today but I remember when Moonraker was released
    It was one of the biggest films of the year, and I as a teenager couldn't wait to
    See it ( along with everyone else I knew). It was the Transformers of the day.
    Big budget fun movie. Who knows a more serious, darker Bond film could have
    Died on its arse, as the public of the time, didn't want it ?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    NicNac wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Moore was never comfortable playing the tougher, rougher elements of the character. His stubborn refusal to kick that bad guy in the car off the cliff is galling. That's the character! He didn't like being rough with Maud Adams in the man with the golden gun, either.

    Refusal? He did it didn't he?
    He also mercilessly shot Stromberg several times despite it being unnecessary.
    He killed the twins in OP without mercy.
    He showed a very cold and ruthless streak in several scenes in his first two films.

    The films highlighted the comedy element of the series, yes, but you rarely see Moore himself goofing around - with the honourable exception of the fire engine sequence in AVTAK ;-)

    ...I'd say the moment he pulls out that fish in TSWLM is quite a good example of "goofing around".

    Let's be honest, while Moore did have his more serious moments, he seemed to prefer playing it a bit lighter. At least that's the impression I got.

    His attitude to this day is basically "this is all a load of escapist nonsense".
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    edited February 2015 Posts: 1,596
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    For me, the silliness had started to creep in with Goldfinger (machine gun toting grannies and seagull hats anyone?), and would last until DAD with the exceptions of OHMSS, TLD and LTK.

    TLD had its share of silliness as well.

    It's a series with silly moments. I'm glad SKYFALL brought some of the slight silliness back and embraced it while remaining tasteful. I expect Mendes to continue that trend, as he's stated he would like to.

    Also that Sam Neill screen test was abominable. Roger was awesome as Bond. He made the role his own. He was James Bond on screen, love him or hate him, which is half the battle.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    ThighsOfXenia wrote: »
    MayDayDiVicenzo wrote: »
    For me, the silliness had started to creep in with Goldfinger (machine gun toting grannies and seagull hats anyone?), and would last until DAD with the exceptions of OHMSS, TLD and LTK.

    TLD had its share of silliness as well.

    It's a series with silly moments. I'm glad SKYFALL brought some of the slight silliness back and embraced it while remaining tasteful. I expect Mendes to continue that trend, as he's stated he would like to.

    Also that Sam Neill screen test was abominable. Roger was awesome as Bond. He made the role his own. He was James Bond on screen, love him or hate him, which is half the battle.

    Oh yes, all Bond films have at least one silly moment.

    But I suppose it was with GOLDFINGER that it started to become a staple.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Roger was playing Bond 50% of the time and playing himself the other 50% of the time.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    And I for one enjoyed it 100% of the time ! ;)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Sam Neil might have been an half decent Bond. He kind of reminds me a little bit of Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye.
  • jobojobo
    edited February 2015 Posts: 7,507
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Sam Neil might have been an ok Bond. He kind of reminds me a little bit of Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye.

    Yes, I thought the same thing. Quite bland and wooden... ;) :P
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    jobo wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Sam Neil might have been an ok Bond. He kind of reminds me a little bit of Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye.

    Yes, I thought the same thing. Quite bland and wooden... ;)

    I was going to say the suave if light-weight crowd-pleaser ;)

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Sam Neil always makes me think he's a great second name on the bill but not a srtong
    enough actor to take the lead role.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Fans of Jurassic Park might disagree ;)

    Then again one could argue the "stars" of those films are the dinosaurs.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    An ensemble piece, ;) Much as I like him ( Which I do ) I don't think he commands the screen the way some actors do. I think he'd make a great Tanner, but not Bond. :)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited February 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I don't think he commands the screen the way some actors do

    One could say the same about Brosnan and Dalton. I'm kind of indifferent to Sam Neil. I like him, but not enough to follow his career with major interest. I saw the tail-end of Dead Calm the other night on Sky. He seemed alright in that from what I saw.
Sign In or Register to comment.