› ›

Why did they not replace Roger Moore in 1980?

1…457910…13

Comments

  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    while the novels adhere to a loose feel for real espionage, the films are not 'spy' films, they are works of overblown nonsense and flights of fancy with an espionage aesthetic. The only Bond pic that feels genuinely viable as a look at true espionage is FRWL. Other than that, forget it. Even the Craig pics are wildly fantastic in the cold light of day.

    Once you take that into account it appears to me that Moore is at the opposite end of the spectrum from a FRWL, or an OHMSS, but that doesn't make his pictures any less viable. He's still on the spectrum given the context in which he's working. He was making pictures that were appropriate at the time. They're not to your taste, but they were never intended to be true espionage films, Bond had become it's own beast. A heightened, glamorous, fantastical world. So suggesting they're bad for not being 'spy' films is a moot point imo. It's why people refer to Bond films as 'Bond films', they're a sub genre of their own. Whether they should have been true 'spy' films is again up for debate, but the fact is 'they weren't' and for a lot of people they do what they do excellently and deliver what they promise.
    Quoted for perfection.
    =D>

    Wait, not only are they not to my taste, they have been judged as parody and comedy by the world. It would be one thing if I was referring to SOme like it Hot as a bad picture, but I'm saying that santa claus meets the martians is a bad picture, so if I'm stating not only what I think is bad but the world has judged as bad, I don't think there's anything wrong with stating my opinion as long as I'm doing it politely.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    RC7 wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    I think he meant it as an slight, and took it thus. Did not mean to offend anyone, apologies if it came out like that. I'm certainly not interested in personally insulting anyone.

    I'm didn't mean it as a slight actually. I certainly wouldn't do that. I was asking because of your almost constant references to Bond's toughness and Moore's softness. I just wondered if it was a personal preference, which would add a different context. I'm not suggesting straight men can't be into tough guys, it was just the frequency of your references to this that made me curious.

    Ha ha, thanks @chrisisall

    Well then I owe you an apology, RC.

    Super sorry.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    if I'm stating not only what I think is bad but the world has judged as bad, I don't think there's anything wrong with stating my opinion as long as I'm doing it politely.

    I've known people with delusions of grandeur, but speaking on behalf of the world, that's a new one on me.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,716
    Where is the proof that the world judge the Moore films as bad? You mean those 45 critics on RT?

    On RT you can see 61 thousands people voted TMWTGG a 3.3/5 rating, much higher than the 45 critics. Do you trust 61 thousands people or just 45 movie critics who expect Oscar material for each film they see?
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    I've worked on over 40 major motion pictures.

    Let me guess - you are the director of Boat Trip and somehow hold Rog responsible for it tanking and ruining your promising career and denying you certain Oscar glory (or 90% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes which, let's face it, for you would be a greater triumph)?
    Murdock wrote: »
    Yes It's nice to repeat yourself on a daily bases

    Daily? Try every 3.2 seconds. Top Gear on Dave is less repetitive than doubleohdad.

    Again, try and debate my points instead of insulting me. All this proves is that you think I'm right and it upsets you.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    The main argument that me and everyone here will agree with apart from you @doubleohdad is that your one and only point you make is the RT critics. 45 critics at most reviewed the Moore film as bad. 45 people who expect Oscar material for each film they see. You don't understand the general audience think otherwise because they expect fun and entertainement, and Bond fans think otherwise because each member here know what he/she want for Bond, and not whether or not the acting, directing, script, music or costume design should get Oscar noms. We expect the films to be what WE want as Bond, which movie critics don't, they just want to see Oscar bait films. The Moore films are not what you expect from Bond, fair enough, but there are tens of millions of people who do expect Bond to be like Roger Moore. And Moore was 007 for 12 years for there is an entire generation of small boys around the world who grew up with him as Bond and still love him to this day.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    @RC7 your post that the Bond films are not proper "spy films" is absolutely correct. Watch a John LeCarre film if thats what you want. Ive made this comparison before-the Bond films are to espionage what the Indiana Jones films are to archeology. Thats why I prefer the films that arent too serious-Bond isnt a completely serious character. And before dad asks, no that doesnt mean I like double taking pigeons or slide whistles. One can go too far in the opposite direction.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    I seem to remember a few weeks ago that @doubleohdad thought Bond films can only be classified as action film like Die Hard. Now he thinks Bond films are only spy flicks.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    I've worked on over 40 major motion pictures.

    Let me guess - you are the director of Boat Trip and somehow hold Rog responsible for it tanking and ruining your promising career and denying you certain Oscar glory (or 90% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes which, let's face it, for you would be a greater triumph)?
    Murdock wrote: »
    Yes It's nice to repeat yourself on a daily bases

    Daily? Try every 3.2 seconds. Top Gear on Dave is less repetitive than doubleohdad.

    Again, try and debate my points instead of insulting me. All this proves is that you think I'm right and it upsets you.

    No it just proves that you're beyond parody.

    It's difficult to debate with someone as intransigent in their views as a member of ISIS.

    Yes the Moore films are lighter in tone than the Craig or Dalton ones and overstep the mark with things such as the slide whistle and the pigeon. You don't like them; we get that (sweet Jesus do we get that) and a lot of us agree that the those moments are a disgrace.

    Now given all that, if you want to actually have a debate then fine but if you just to want annoy people by repeating the same thing ad infinitum then please just stop. This is Bond forum not a tiresomely slagging off Roger Moore forum. By all means criticise but you really are bringing nothing to the table old son.
    doubleohdad wrote: »

    I'm stating not only what I think is bad but the world has judged as bad.

    I think the millions of admissions for Roger's films might beg to differ but don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions of grandeur.

    The asylums are full of people who think they are Napoleon. Or God.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    I have problems, with the direction the series was headed between '71-'85, but I never blamed Roger Moore. In fact, he was the only one that made those films enjoyable and entertaining.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    royale65 wrote: »
    I have problems, with the direction the series was headed between '71-'85, but I never blamed Roger Moore. In fact, he was the only one that made those films enjoyable and entertaining.

    Indeed. If you think OP is shocking as it is doubleohdad imagine it with James Brolin FFS.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    royale65 wrote: »
    I have problems, with the direction the series was headed between '71-'85, but I never blamed Roger Moore. In fact, he was the only one that made those films enjoyable and entertaining.

    I'm kind of mixed on this. While I do think the scripts and producers were responsible Moore did feel like he was playing himself rather than 007 a fair chunk of the time. He was always charismatic, but he didn't always feel like Bond.

    He ultimately chose to play it lighter and more like himself.

    As for replacing Moore in 1980? No! FYEO and OP were two of his better performances IMO.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,778
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    He's just a guy. He's not a god. He's not even a saint. He can be criticized just like anyone else.

    Legacy?

    And of course his films can be criticized, they're the worst-reviewed in the entire series. He sure had no issue taking the money as the films got worse and worse.

    He starred in the worst reviewed films in the series if you go by Rotten Tomatoes, which seems to be your bible. But the fact of the matter is that every Bond actor starred in atleast one film that was not well recieved by critics. As my favorite actor of all time, Charles Bronson, once said, "I don't make movies for film critics because they don't pay to see them anyhow". At the end of the day it's the audience that matters most. The way an audience shows its approval is by buying tickets. So lets talk about Moore's "legacy" in that regard.

    LALD, TSWLM, and MR (adjusted for inflation) grossed more money than all of Brosnan's films, both of Dalton's, and OHMSS. LALD grossed only a little less than CR and QOS. But what's even more telling is that the only Bond films to gross more than TSWLM and Moonraker are Skyfall, Thunderball, Goldfinger, and You Only Live Twice. Moonraker is the last Bond film to have the distinction of the being the highest grossing film of the year. Not even Skyfall can lay claim to that. These aren't moot opinions. They're cold hard facts. That's Moore's legacy. Being an undeniably massive success in the role of James Bond.
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    Dalton should have been brought on after moonraker. They bled Moore dry after 85

    And yet when Dalton was brought in his films didn't fare any better than Moore's later efforts. Worse actually as both FYEO and Octopussy outgrossed TLD while LTK was the lowest grossing entry in the entire series. Casual audiences were tired of the Bond series in general during the 80s. The actor playing the character wasn't to blame. 6 Bond films were released during an 8 year span during the 80s. For the average fan it was a Bond overload.


    You're talking financial success, not quality of the pictures. Different, man. People went to see these films knowing they were parodies, and they made a lot of money for the studio and the Broccoli family, but they lacked in quality big-time.

    DO you really think Bronson was prouder of the quality stuff he did or those financially successful 70's films he did?

    Danton's films failed because the public now thought of Bond as a parody and it took twenty years for the public to accept a serious, action-oriented Bond again in Craig.

    The jokes and parody are all over the Moore films. If you wanna call that successful, that's up to you, but they are out-and-out comedies and should be treated as such.

    I'm sorry but I don think that the "quality" of filmmaking for the Connery films were that much better (if at all) than the Moore films. They were directed, produced, and made by basically the same people. If you're going to get all highbrow about your cinematic tastes than you probably shouldn't be on a James Bond forum. None of the Bond films are high-art. They're popcorn flicks. Yes, even the Connery masterpieces that you hold in such high regard. But then again you're just going to bring up rotten tomatoes again so I don't know why I even bothered to respond.

    "Danton's films failed because the public now thought of Bond as a parody and it took twenty years for the public to accept a serious, action-oriented Bond again in Craig."

    But you're precious critics on Rotten Tomatoes only ranked his films 75% and 76%. A far cry from 90% or higher. And as far as your theory of Dalton's films not flourishing because Moore had turned them into parodies, that's complete nonsense. If that was the case than why did Craig's movies succeed so well after the lunacy of Die Another Day?
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    ThomasCrown76 wrote: »
    He's just a guy. He's not a god. He's not even a saint. He can be criticized just like anyone else.

    Legacy?

    And of course his films can be criticized, they're the worst-reviewed in the entire series. He sure had no issue taking the money as the films got worse and worse.

    I find the irony of that statement to be overwhelming. Seeing as how your hero Sean Connery was OBSESSED with money. His anger of his feelings that he was underpaid was so great and lasted so long Connery refused to show up to Cubby Broccoli's funeral in 1997. Sean Connery is one of my all time favorite actors but that was a completely classless move. The man was dead. The least Connery could've done was pay his respects to the man who gave him his first big break. But nope. Broccoli gipped him out of some money over 30 years ago so the bitterness was to continue even in death.

    Hell it took a record-breaking sum to get Connery back in DAF. And Connery had "no issue taking the money as the films got worse and worse". I count NSNA in that trend aswell.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    The other problem with Rotten tomatoes is that they only include reviews that are online. That's why the older a movie is, the fewer reviews there are. Using it as an accurate gauge of critical reaction at the time is flawed.

    @DoubleOhhSeven is right that the Bond films have always been much more Transformers than Boyhood.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    Posts: 1,146
    In response to your post, it becomes a matter of story, and the Moore films simply had stories that were parodies of the earlier pictures, so that in itself explains that the Connery films were held to a higher regard. THey were not perfect, but they were not parodies or comedies either.

    The Dalton films also were the last of the pictures made by the old guard, and they showed it. Other directors were making more influential adventure films at the same time, and the Dalton films were caught in the middle between Dalton's hope for serious pictures and the financial but not critical success of the Moore camp films.

    Craigs films succeeded because they are good stories, in the case of CR and SF very good stories, and society is ready to accept that a more serious Bond tone is the way to go.

    No more camp and comedy.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    In response to your post, it becomes a matter of story, and the Moore films simply had stories that were parodies of the earlier pictures, so that in itself explains that the Connery films were held to a higher regard. THey were not perfect, but they were not parodies or comedies either.

    The Dalton films also were the last of the pictures made by the old guard, and they showed it. Other directors were making more influential adventure films at the same time, and the Dalton films were caught in the middle between Dalton's hope for serious pictures and the financial but not critical success of the Moore camp films.

    Craigs films succeeded because they are good stories, in the case of CR and SF very good stories, and society is ready to accept that a more serious Bond tone is the way to go.

    No more camp and comedy.

    Hahahaha! Right because rocket-ships getting launched from hallowed out volcanos, Bond tastelessly disguising himself as a Japanese man, and a man building a giant laser in space are about as far from a parody as you can get. Such startling recreations of real-life espionage should never be confused with camp or silliness.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    Connery in YOLT went to Osato's office without planning to go there, yet he pops out a safe cracker small enough to fit in his pocket, and manages to crack the code in 20 seconds flat. 2 years later Lazenby was planning to go to Gumbold's offce but this time he has a safe cracker the size of a printer that takes 5 minutes to crack the code.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Connery in YOLT went to Osato's office without planning to go there, yet he pops out a safe cracker small enough to fit in his pocket, and manages to crack the code in 20 seconds flat. 2 years later Lazenby was planning to go to Gumbold's offce but this time he has a safe cracker the size of a printer that takes 5 minutes to crack the code.

    Much longer than 5 minutes. Gumbold was gone for an hour. Bond found the safe very quickly and made his copies very quickly aswell. That safe-cracker probably took around 40-50 mins to get the job done.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Connery in YOLT went to Osato's office without planning to go there, yet he pops out a safe cracker small enough to fit in his pocket, and manages to crack the code in 20 seconds flat. 2 years later Lazenby was planning to go to Gumbold's offce but this time he has a safe cracker the size of a printer that takes 5 minutes to crack the code.

    Much longer than 5 minutes. Gumbold was gone for an hour. Bond found the safe very quickly and made his copies very quickly aswell. That safe-cracker probably took around 40-50 mins to get the job done.

    Points taken. As I've said elsewhere, I've always explained this particular anomaly by the inference that OHMSS is a Fleming based, more realistic, down to earth soft reboot, while YOLT is Lewis Gilbert doing everything he can to outdo TB's success.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited January 2015 Posts: 15,716
    All I will say about Sir Rog is that the day he dies, the world will be a lot less fun to live in. I may exaggerate sometimes, but not when I say Sir Rog is one of the kindest human beings to have been alive in recent decades.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    All I will say about Sir Rog is that the day he dies, the world will be a lot less fun to live in. I may exaggerate sometimes, but not when I say Sir Rog is one of the kindest human beings to have been alive in recent decades.

    Hear, hear! Definitely an old school English gentleman. They don't build them like that any more.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,146
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    All I will say about Sir Rog is that the day he dies, the world will be a lot less fun to live in. I may exaggerate sometimes, but not when I say Sir Rog is one of the kindest human beings to have been alive in recent decades.

    I will state that my understanding is that Moore is a VERY kind man on a personal level.

    Double oh seven, this is for you, I'm editing my post rather than double-post!

    I'm not debating there are less than spectacular moments all throughout the Connery films, but there was a level of comedy, camp and parody that are undeniably part of the Moore films.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    bondjames wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    All I will say about Sir Rog is that the day he dies, the world will be a lot less fun to live in. I may exaggerate sometimes, but not when I say Sir Rog is one of the kindest human beings to have been alive in recent decades.

    Hear, Hear! Definitely an old school English gentleman. They don't build them like that any more.

    And one of the last of a dying breed of movie star. Back when there was a certain level of mystique and prestige to being a celebrity. Now people can get famous off of YouTube or reality tv.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,369
    Wow, @DoubleOhhSeven went for the jugular. Bravo sir! Very well articulated.

    To each his/her own, but I don't understand why one can't enjoy both serious and camp; the films that balance the two (GF, TSWLM, GE), the films that go extremely serious (LTK, QOS), and the films that go extremely campy (YOLT, MR). They all have something to offer and should not be passed up.

    I'm sure I sound like a broken record, but if the series was always serious or always campy, it would have died out years ago. The variety of different pictures and approaches that Bond has is what has led to its freshness and longevity.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    I think, debating with doubelohdad is pointless, he does not want to discuss Sir Roger's Bond movies seriously. As for OP, it was my first Bond movie ever (then at the movie theatre), I liked it back then, it is still enteraining (all Moore Bonds are IMO). It has some cringe-worthy moments (the outdoor India stuff, the Tarzan scream). FYEO worked well for a "harder" Bond approach following the outlandish MR. And to keep Moore to face off NSNA was a good choice, a new Bond actor might have had problems. I think I read somewhere about Sir Roger stating, that he thought, that maybe he should have left after OP, but then he got his swansong. And the sometimes silly moments in his movies probably are not his fault, the writers and the directors were responsible for this. For TLD they shot this magic carpet ride scene, which they then thankfully cut. And I agree that Sir Roger helepd to keep the franchise alive in the 1970' and 1980's, without him, the franchise might have died.
  • doubleohdaddoubleohdad
    edited January 2015 Posts: 1,146
    MooseWithFleas wrote: »
    Wow, @DoubleOhhSeven went for the jugular. Bravo sir! Very well articulated.

    To each his/her own, but I don't understand why one can't enjoy both serious and camp; the films that balance the two (GF, TSWLM, GE), the films that go extremely serious (LTK, QOS), and the films that go extremely campy (YOLT, MR). They all have something to offer and should not be passed up.

    I'm sure I sound like a broken record, but if the series was always serious or always campy, it would have died out years ago. The variety of different pictures and approaches that Bond has is what has led to its freshness and longevity.

    I can, for example the Pink Panther films are parodies and ridiculously funny, and I enjoy them.

    I do not think YOLT is camp. Some not-so-great ideas, but not camp.

    This is for Dr Kaufman so as to not double-post. I bring up the cool stuff in the Moore films all the time. And also bring up the bad stuff in the Connery films. It's just that the former has a lot and the latter does not.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    You only bring up the "cool stuff" in the Moore films to disparage them.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,795
    doubleohdad wrote: »
    I do not think YOLT is camp. Some not-so-great ideas, but not camp.
    OMG, a bit of solid agreement here!

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    doubleohdad wrote: »

    Craigs films succeeded because they are good stories, in the case of CR and SF very good stories

    Good call. Because Silva's telekinetic ability to predict every minute eventuality is far more credible than anything that happened in a Rog film isn't it?

    doubleohdad wrote: »
    I bring up the cool stuff in the Moore films all the time. And also bring up the bad stuff in the Connery films.

    Feel free to point us in the direction of any of these posts if they so exist. If you're successful at uncovering some of your many pro Rog posts perhaps after that you should head up to Loch Ness - reckon you'd have that one cracked in 5 minutes.

    You really should be on the stage.
  • FourDotFourDot
    Posts: 250
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    doubleohdad wrote: »

    Craigs films succeeded because they are good stories, in the case of CR and SF very good stories

    Good call. Because Silva's telekinetic ability to predict every minute eventuality is far more credible than anything that happened in a Rog film isn't it?

    Story is not plot.
Sign In or Register to comment.