Why did they not replace Roger Moore in 1980?

1568101113

Comments

  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I think they're pretty closely related.
  • Posts: 43
    Many of the things that have been said about Moore could be said about Pierce. PB saved the series in the 90's like Moore saved it in the 70s
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    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?
    LOL, well played!
    =D>
  • Posts: 2,026
    Never having been a Moore fan, were I in charge, he would have been gone after LALD.
    That said, my favorite Moore film happens to be LALD. There was enough going on that Moore was less of a distraction in that film than those that followed. I didn't care for his interpretation of Bond, nor the direction the series was going--parody of the series itself, raising the level of comedy, cheesy gags.

    From a business point of view, staying with RM until he was no longer credible was a smart move. He was big box office, the series reached new heights, and for the Bond, the Next Generation generation, he was Bond. SC was some old guy (albeit younger than RM) they knew little about.

    So why not replace Moore in 1980? It wouldn't have made business sense.
  • Posts: 250
    Sark wrote: »
    I think they're pretty closely related.

    One is a conveyance for the other. But Silva's Joker-like omniscience doesn't particularly impede Mendes's ability to tell a damn good yarn.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    FourDot wrote: »

    One is a conveyance for the other. But Silva's Joker-like omniscience doesn't particularly impede Mendes's ability to tell a damn good yarn.

    Interesting. After seeing this particular exchange, I looked up the difference between plot and story. Based on the Wiki definition, it appears that SF had a good plot after all. It was the story (which is meant to be more detailed and link everything together) which was awful.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_(narrative)
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    No Bond movie is a "realistic" spy movie, they never were, they'll never be. Neither are Ian Fleming's novels. People, who want more *realistic* spy movies might indeed turn onto last year's excellent "A Most Wanted Man" starring the (to soon) Philipp Seymour Hofmann, based on John le Carrés novel. Or TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. Even with the flaws in MR, OP, or AVTAK, these movies are meant to be entertainment, and that is what they are. If one does no Moore's Bond movies, he/she is allowed to. But then starting a debate, which quickly turns out to be anything, but not a debate or discussion, without any arguments, and just repeat the one point, that the person in question does not like the Moore Bonds, is getting more and more tiresome.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »

    Interesting. After seeing this particular exchange, I looked up the difference between plot and story. Based on the Wiki definition, it appears that SF had a good plot after all. It was the story (which is meant to be more detailed and link everything together) which was awful.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_(narrative)

    We can discuss semantics all day. Bottom line is Silva's clairvoyance is absolute bollocks.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883

    We can discuss semantics all day. Bottom line is Silva's clairvoyance is absolute bollocks.

    On that we are definitely in agreement.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I saw A Most Wanted Man. If Bond ever became a 'realistic spy movie' in that vein would kill my Bond fandom faster than all the slide whistles in the world. Hoffman was a very good actor and played his role extremely well (even watching him smoke a cigarette in his room was interesting) but the movie overall was a damn bore. I'm sure doubleohdad loved it though, since the critics did.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Sark wrote: »
    I saw A Most Wanted Man. If Bond ever became a 'realistic spy movie' in that vein would kill my Bond fandom faster than all the slide whistles in the world. Hoffman was a very good actor and played his role extremely well (even watching him smoke a cigarette in his room was interesting) but the movie overall was a damn bore. I'm sure doubleohdad loved it though, since the critics did.

    Which critics though? doubleohdad only worships the gospel according to Rotten Tomatoes - all others are infidels.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    deleted. should have posted on another thread.
  • Posts: 1,146
    No Bond movie is a "realistic" spy movie, they never were, they'll never be. Neither are Ian Fleming's novels. People, who want more *realistic* spy movies might indeed turn onto last year's excellent "A Most Wanted Man" starring the (to soon) Philipp Seymour Hofmann, based on John le Carrés novel. Or TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. Even with the flaws in MR, OP, or AVTAK, these movies are meant to be entertainment, and that is what they are. If one does no Moore's Bond movies, he/she is allowed to. But then starting a debate, which quickly turns out to be anything, but not a debate or discussion, without any arguments, and just repeat the one point, that the person in question does not like the Moore Bonds, is getting more and more tiresome.

    No but the more grounded they are, the more they thrive. The bigger the bond movies got, the more ridiculous they got.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    If by 'thrive' you mean be huge box office successes then youre extremely wrong.
  • Posts: 1,146
    From a story and quality standpoint they did. EON barely got away with it in YOLT, in my opinion, and DAF begat a bigger upon bigger formula that would not allow the Moore Bond to have a relatively reasonable story until FYEO.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I found LALD & TMWTGG relatively grounded, story wise, no? There were no take-over the world plots in those two. Sure, the direction was a little comedic in places, but they were pretty down to earth plots.
  • Posts: 11,425
    aspie wrote: »
    Many of the things that have been said about Moore could be said about Pierce. PB saved the series in the 90's like Moore saved it in the 70s

    Nonsense! The series didn't need saving in 95. What happened is that we were denied a third movie from the man-god that is Timothy Dalton and were plunged into a decade of dreary drek!

    Thank God they didn't replace Rog in 81 - we would have been denied the masterpiece that is OP!

    Sadly they did replace Dalton in 95 and we got the abysmal Brosnan.
  • Posts: 1,146
    bondjames wrote: »
    I found LALD & TMWTGG relatively grounded, story wise, no? There were no take-over the world plots in those two. Sure, the direction was a little comedic in places, but they were pretty down to earth plots.

    You're right, yet the stories still tanked.

    Get,
    I'll have to check where the Dalt and Broz films rank on rt and compare them. I'd opine that GE was a close call over the Dalt films, which in turn were them far better than Broz last three pictures.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    I'll have to check where the Dalt and Broz films rank on rt and compare them.

    Good idea. Because that will end any debate once and for all.

    You really are beyond parody mate. You're like the ayatollah intoning we all live by sharia law as sent down from the prophet Rotten Tomato (PBUH).

    Perhaps you could start your own caliphate that adheres to the strict teachings of Rotten Tomatoes and cuts the head off anyone who likes Roger Moore?
  • Posts: 1,146
    That's funny!

    Certainly you feel like you have to insult rather than debate.

    Sticks and stones, mate.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Certainly you feel like you have to insult rather than debate.

    I've given you the benefit of the doubt a couple of times and attempted 'debate', but your rhetoric is just a slew of repetitive conjecture that you mistakenly assume is fact.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited January 2015 Posts: 4,399
    @doubleohdad

    you have consistently stated that Moore's films are the worst in the series, both by your standards, and the standards of critics (citing Rotten Tomatoes).. but if thats the case, then how come 4 out of his 7 films have solid "Fresh" ratings?

    Live and Let Die - 66% - (critic consensus) While not one of the highest-rated Bond films, Live and Let Die finds Roger Moore adding his stamp to the series with flashes of style and an improved sense of humor.

    The Spy Who Loved Me - 78% - (critic consensus) Though it hints at the absurdity to come in later installments, The Spy Who Loved Me's sleek style, menacing villains, and sly wit make it the best of the Roger Moore era.

    Moonraker - 62% - (critic consensus) Featuring one of the series' more ludicrous plots but outfitted with primo gadgets and spectacular sets, Moonraker is both silly and entertaining.

    For Your Eyes Only - 73% - (critic consensus) For Your Eyes Only trades in some of the outlandish Bond staples for a more sober outing, and the result is a satisfying adventure, albeit without some of the bombastic thrills fans may be looking for.


    by comparison, 3 of Brosnan's 4 films are rated worse than the ones above..
  • Posts: 1,146
    I resemble that remark!

    Yeah, I dunno, I'e given credit to the Moore stuff when due. I certainly don't feel like I have to alert the mods simply because I don't like their opinions. Debate when polite is a healthy thing, as opposed to cheerleading.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,827
    Getafix wrote: »
    Sadly they did replace Dalton in 95 and we got the abysmal Brosnan.
    I'm tired of the Brosnan hate. Are you & doubleohdad the same guy harping on your two pet peeves? Are you trying to drive me off this site? Because you're both doing a wonderful job of making me consider it....
    8-|
  • Posts: 1,146
    HASEROT wrote: »
    @doubleohdad

    you have consistently stated that Moore's films are the worst in the series, both by your standards, and the standards of critics (citing Rotten Tomatoes).. but if thats the case, then how come 4 out of his 7 films have solid "Fresh" ratings?

    Live and Let Die - 66% - (critic consensus) While not one of the highest-rated Bond films, Live and Let Die finds Roger Moore adding his stamp to the series with flashes of style and an improved sense of humor.

    The Spy Who Loved Me - 78% - (critic consensus) Though it hints at the absurdity to come in later installments, The Spy Who Loved Me's sleek style, menacing villains, and sly wit make it the best of the Roger Moore era.

    Moonraker - 62% - (critic consensus) Featuring one of the series' more ludicrous plots but outfitted with primo gadgets and spectacular sets, Moonraker is both silly and entertaining.

    For Your Eyes Only - 73% - (critic consensus) For Your Eyes Only trades in some of the outlandish Bond staples for a more sober outing, and the result is a satisfying adventure, albeit without some of the bombastic thrills fans may be looking for.


    by comparison, 3 of Brosnan's 4 films are rated worse than the ones above..

    All these films are rated what they are rated, I accept that, and if your definition of a cinematic triumph is a c+, more power to you. I've been pretty clear about the last three Broz films not being any good. They are what they are, both Broz and Moore, pretty uninspired excursions into Bond filmmaking. Except for GE. That one EASILY is the best of the Moore/Broz bunch.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm tired of the Brosnan hate. Are you & doubleohdad the same guy harping on your two pet peeves? Are you trying to drive me off this site? Because you're both doing a wonderful job of making me consider it....
    8-|

    Please don't go @chrisisall.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I'e given credit to the Moore stuff when due.

    When did that ever happen? One 6 word post along the lines of 'The PTS in OP is good' just to try and get the mods off your back hardly makes up for the infinite repetition of 'Moores films arent very good. Dont take it on trust - look its on Rotten Tomatoes so it must be true'.

    You claim you want debate but youve got absolutely nothing in your locker apart from your 3 stock phrases.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited January 2015 Posts: 4,399
    All these films are rated what they are rated, I accept that, and if your definition of a cinematic triumph is a c+, more power to you. I've been pretty clear about the last three Broz films not being any good. They are what they are, both Broz and Moore, pretty uninspired excursions into Bond filmmaking. Except for GE. That one EASILY is the best of the Moore/Broz bunch.

    But see... now your changing your argument.... you went from "they are not good." to "they are not cinematic triumphs".... which one is it?... No one is arguing that they are cinematic masterpieces, we are arguing against your original statement that "All of Moore's films are terrible"... which, even according to the numbers that you love so much, they are not... but now, your definition of a good and entertaining Bond film is that it has to be a cinematic masterpiece?........ you sir would make a perfect politician.

    if you don't like Roger Moore, thats your opinion, and no one is going to argue your opinion... but don't try and back your opinion with numbers and facts that simply aren't true.
  • Posts: 1,146
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I'm tired of the Brosnan hate. Are you & doubleohdad the same guy harping on your two pet peeves? Are you trying to drive me off this site? Because you're both doing a wonderful job of making me consider it....
    8-|

    A little debate is all it takes to get you to abandon ship?
  • Posts: 1,146

    When did that ever happen? One 6 word post along the lines of 'The PTS in OP is good' just to try and get the mods off your back hardly makes up for the infinite repetition of 'Moores films arent very good. Dont take it on trust - look its on Rotten Tomatoes so it must be true'.

    You claim you want debate but youve got absolutely nothing in your locker apart from your 3 stock phrases.

    Uhhhhhhh…….nope. I've stated the stuff that's good and bad for both the connery and moore films throughout these threads, it's just that there's so much more bad in the Moore films than the Connery films.

    Blow up Katanga.

    awful southern sheriff.

    gondola gags that border on diabolical

    to tiger: "Sit!"

    Jaws drops a brick on his foot like daffy duck

    old man moore hitting on far too young women

    no memorable fights

    Jaws FALLS IN LOVE

    double-take pidgeon

    godawful tennis match

    godawful hockey match

    I could go on and on….

    If some of these films got a C- on RT, they should be grateful because they deserve far worse.

    Bond as a clown

    Bond in a gorilla suit

    I think that was more than three, right?

    Now, before anyone complains, I was responding to a previous question.
Sign In or Register to comment.