The What if EON choses to "re-boot" with the next film and we get another Bond begins? page 63

1333436383964

Comments

  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    suavejmf wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Wasn't there also talk of Connery being Bond's dad in one of the Brosnan era films as well?

    Yeah for DAD. Tamahori came up with the idea that during the interrogation General Moon holds up a photo of Connery telling Brosnan "you can return to your father if you tell us", a photo which was confiscated from Bond when captured. The real kicker is that it would reveal that Connery is not only Bond's father but was the very same man we saw in the 1960s Bond films, because Tamahori was pretty big on the code name theory. Obviously that was rejected by EON.

    Thank goodness that didn't happen.

    Tamahori was clearly insane. Probably one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard from a Director.

    Our asylums are full of people who think they're Naploeon.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,131
    Octopussy wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Wasn't there also talk of Connery being Bond's dad in one of the Brosnan era films as well?

    Yeah for DAD. Tamahori came up with the idea that during the interrogation General Moon holds up a photo of Connery telling Brosnan "you can return to your father if you tell us", a photo which was confiscated from Bond when captured. The real kicker is that it would reveal that Connery is not only Bond's father but was the very same man we saw in the 1960s Bond films, because Tamahori was pretty big on the code name theory. Obviously that was rejected by EON.

    Thank goodness that didn't happen.

    Tamahori was clearly insane. Probably one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard from a Director.

    Our asylums are full of people who think they're Naploeon.

    Ha ha ha. Well said!
  • Posts: 1,919
    I agree that anyone not named Connery would've gotten the same reception as Lazenby.
    As far as other candidates, judging just by the photos, I like Campbell, he had the look. Richardson not so much. In the full article there are photos of him that he looks skeletal, quite the opposite of Connery. I am not sure Campbell's being American would've necessarily worked against him considering Eon hired another American, John Gavin. before Connery was lured back.
    Regardless of the one ultimately chosen, I think that the difference with Lazenby would have been played on the decision or not of the actor to sign a contract for more films. The cold reception of the public towards Lazenby, it seems to me, owes a lot to the fact that even before the release of OHMSS, its star already resigned from the role, creating a bleak expectation for the audience.

    If the actor was announced before the release to star in several other installments, this could have created a more encouraging dynamic. This leads to the same status if Lazenby continued for more movies: I think he could have been accepted by the audiences, but never as much as Moore was ultimately.

    I will disagree here. Consider the times. Given I was only about 2 when OHMSS was in production, there is no way I could've had any knowledge of the situation, but how well communicated was the fact Lazenby would not return as Bond? Opposed to the communication-driven world we are in today, those in the entertainment industry would've known, but the general public was likely less informed. Perhaps some of our members around at the time may have some insight, I just think a majority of moviegoers were not necessarily into entertainment news, especially here in the U.S. where there weren't the Entertainment Weekly magazines or anything similar. Not even an official fan club back then.

    Audiences heard there was a new James Bond movie. There was likely enough goodwill that those who liked Connery would take a chance on the new guy. Then it was likely word-of-mouth that said the new guy sucked, the longer running time and it was bleak as far as the tone and ending. Knowing he would be back for more wouldn't have created any type of better acceptance, I wouldn't think if they didn't like the initial offering.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,447
    I wonder how many people thought Golden Gun would star a different Bond? Bear in mind that each of the previous four films had a different actor in the lead! :D
  • Posts: 1,919
    Given LALD was a big success it didn't really give any doubt Moore wouldn't return, and Moore even mentions in the James Bond Diary in one entry that Saltzman was talking about planning to shoot the film in '74. But to an average moviegoer it may have seemed that way at the time.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,443
    I think the reason to rush into production of TMWTGG was to capitalize on the popularity of LALD and assure everyone that Moore was the new Bond. I don't think UA would have been pleased with yet another round of casting after Moore's success. Though you do wonder if at any time with Spy whether Broccoli considered any other actors for the role.

    I guess the others weren't cast for a reason. But the fact that a photographer was allowed to shoot photographs suggests they were the final to get serious consideration.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    thedove wrote: »
    I think the reason to rush into production of TMWTGG was to capitalize on the popularity of LALD and assure everyone that Moore was the new Bond. I don't think UA would have been pleased with yet another round of casting after Moore's success. Though you do wonder if at any time with Spy whether Broccoli considered any other actors for the role.

    Moore had a three films contract.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,316
    thedove wrote: »
    I think the reason to rush into production of TMWTGG was to capitalize on the popularity of LALD and assure everyone that Moore was the new Bond. I don't think UA would have been pleased with yet another round of casting after Moore's success. Though you do wonder if at any time with Spy whether Broccoli considered any other actors for the role.

    I guess the others weren't cast for a reason. But the fact that a photographer was allowed to shoot photographs suggests they were the final to get serious consideration.

    Makes me wonder if LTK had shown up 1.5 years later too, might the box office have been better? Another what if...
  • Posts: 15,139
    vzok wrote: »
    I think Roger was about the only actor who could have succeeded straight after Connery. He was very popular in the US, UK and Europe then. Missed opportunity.

    I agree that only Moore at the time could have succeeded Connery directly and be accepted as Bond. I also do agree with @mtm and @ToTheRight that Moore would have made a better OHMSS overall, his weakness as a fighter notwithstanding.
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 2,918
    I don't think Moore would have done any better with the love scenes than Lazenby. None of his films--Bond or non-Bond--have anything that resembles a deeply felt and convincingly portrayed romantic relationship. And while part of the blame can go to the films themselves, Moore was a self-contained actor with a determinedly light persona. His onscreen relationships with other actors are always kept at a distance.
  • Posts: 16,170
    I have no doubt Sir Roger could have pulled off the romantic angle of OHMSS.
    I can easily see him falling in love with Diana Rigg. In addition his fight scenes on THE SAINT are far more physical than he later got with Bond. There's something bad ass about his suit being rumpled and his messed up pompadour. Coming right off THE SAINT in '68 he could have easily slid into 007's shoes for OHMSS.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,316
    But it probably wouldn't have been Rigg then. She was cast to have gravitas and because of her experience, opposite Lazenby.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,561
    echo wrote: »
    But it probably wouldn't have been Rigg then. She was cast to have gravitas and because of her experience, opposite Lazenby.

    They cast Rigg because of Lazenby? They had previous experience opposite eachother?
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,443
    No they decided to get an actress with the chops to play the role and help the inexperienced Lazenby. They had never acted against each other.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,561
    thedove wrote: »
    No they decided to get an actress with the chops to play the role and help the inexperienced Lazenby. They had never acted against each other.

    Ah gotcha, I'd figured not.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,447
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't think Moore would have done any better with the love scenes than Lazenby. None of his films--Bond or non-Bond--have anything that resembles a deeply felt and convincingly portrayed romantic relationship.

    I don't think that's true: they're not written very deeply I know, but he's able to get a convincing bond of affection between himself and Octopussy, and to lesser extents Anya and Goodhead; even Stacey gets wined and dined and tucked into bed with something approaching respect. He has more of a bond with his leading ladies than Connery ever does for example- Roger is the romantic Bond.
    Plus he'd have been able to more than hold his own with Rigg- the Saint and Emma Peel would have been able to pitch it just right, much better than Lazenby who gets out-acted at every turn.
  • Posts: 15,139
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't think Moore would have done any better with the love scenes than Lazenby. None of his films--Bond or non-Bond--have anything that resembles a deeply felt and convincingly portrayed romantic relationship.

    I don't think that's true: they're not written very deeply I know, but he's able to get a convincing bond of affection between himself and Octopussy, and to lesser extents Anya and Goodhead; even Stacey gets wined and dined and tucked into bed with something approaching respect. He has more of a bond with his leading ladies than Connery ever does for example- Roger is the romantic Bond.
    Plus he'd have been able to more than hold his own with Rigg- the Saint and Emma Peel would have been able to pitch it just right, much better than Lazenby who gets out-acted at every turn.

    I'd add to this that Moore in subsequent Bond films played the grieving widower very well, better I'd say than Dalton. And far better than Connery (albeit this was probably due to the writing of DAF).
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,443
    It's funny how we've come back to Moore in OHMSS. I understand that many think he would have handled the emotional scenes. But he would not have been nearly as good with the physical action. Never mind the fights all the other action that Lazenby was able to handle. Plus if we get Moore then we lose Rigg and I think that is a greater shame as she really is a shining star in this film.
  • Posts: 4,044
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't think Moore would have done any better with the love scenes than Lazenby. None of his films--Bond or non-Bond--have anything that resembles a deeply felt and convincingly portrayed romantic relationship.

    I don't think that's true: they're not written very deeply I know, but he's able to get a convincing bond of affection between himself and Octopussy, and to lesser extents Anya and Goodhead; even Stacey gets wined and dined and tucked into bed with something approaching respect. He has more of a bond with his leading ladies than Connery ever does for example- Roger is the romantic Bond.
    Plus he'd have been able to more than hold his own with Rigg- the Saint and Emma Peel would have been able to pitch it just right, much better than Lazenby who gets out-acted at every turn.

    I'd add to this that Moore in subsequent Bond films played the grieving widower very well, better I'd say than Dalton. And far better than Connery (albeit this was probably due to the writing of DAF).
    But they completely ignored that he was a widower
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,447
    thedove wrote: »
    It's funny how we've come back to Moore in OHMSS. I understand that many think he would have handled the emotional scenes. But he would not have been nearly as good with the physical action. Never mind the fights all the other action that Lazenby was able to handle.

    He wouldn't, but I lived with that through his films! And in his earlier ones he's not too bad: Golden Gun's fight is decent enough so perhaps coming off the end of The Saint he would have been fine I think.

    thedove wrote: »
    Plus if we get Moore then we lose Rigg and I think that is a greater shame as she really is a shining star in this film.

    I don't know if that's a definite though..?
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 2,918
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think that's true: they're not written very deeply I know, but he's able to get a convincing bond of affection between himself and Octopussy, and to lesser extents Anya and Goodhead; even Stacey gets wined and dined and tucked into bed with something approaching respect. He has more of a bond with his leading ladies than Connery ever does for example- Roger is the romantic Bond.

    Tucking someone into bed is something a parent can do with a child. We're talking about conveying passionate love. And there's very little resembling that in Roger's films. It's rare to even find eroticism between the leads, which was a regular feature of the Connery era. Moore, as I said earlier, was a self-contained actor, and there's seldom a convincing emotional connection between him and his leading ladies. He's not entirely at fault since Barbara Bach and Lois Chiles gave such bad and distant performances. Maud Adams was a warmer and more capable actress, but even then she and Roger seem more like old friends than lovers. Moore was less of a "romantic Bond" than a charmer--lots of chat-up but not much real feeling behind it.
    Plus he'd have been able to more than hold his own with Rigg- the Saint and Emma Peel would have been able to pitch it just right

    Nope, Rigg would have eaten him alive. I think he'd have come off rather cardboardy, lightweight, and artificial next to her. Lazenby was barely even an actor, which is probably why he didn't do badly overall. He wasn't trying to maintain a pre-conceived star persona that would have looked flimsy next to an actress as steely and versatile as Rigg. Instead Lazenby comes off looking natural with her. Just as neorealist directors were able to wring fine performances from non-actors, Hunt managed to draw on Lazenby's natural attributes--his self-assurance and athleticism--and get something Bondian out of them. I think that makes OHMSS a much fresher film than it would have been with Moore in it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,447
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think that's true: they're not written very deeply I know, but he's able to get a convincing bond of affection between himself and Octopussy, and to lesser extents Anya and Goodhead; even Stacey gets wined and dined and tucked into bed with something approaching respect. He has more of a bond with his leading ladies than Connery ever does for example- Roger is the romantic Bond.

    Tucking someone into bed is something a parent can do with a child. We're talking about conveying passionate love. And there's very little resembling that in Roger's films.

    And there's none of that in OHMSS as it is. Bond Moore could do a romantic connection very easily, as my examples show.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Plus he'd have been able to more than hold his own with Rigg- the Saint and Emma Peel would have been able to pitch it just right

    Nope, Rigg would have eaten him alive. I think he'd have come off rather cardboardy, lightweight, and artificial next to her.

    8-| If Pat Macnee could manage it, Roger Moore could manage it. It's not as if Moore never appeared with any good actors in his career. He was a movie actor with charisma, just like she was. If they were on stage in Shakespeare, sure; he wouldn't stand a chance. But a James Bond film was hardly unfamiliar territory for him- you just have to watch some of his work to know that.
  • edited June 2020 Posts: 2,918
    mtm wrote: »
    And there's none of that in OHMSS as it is.

    Well, aside from all the scenes of courtship and the marriage proposal...
    Bond Moore could do a romantic connection very easily, as my examples show.

    He could certainly tuck people into bed.
    If Pat Macnee could manage it, Roger Moore could manage it.

    He was also a better overall actor and less typed.
    It's not as if Moore never appeared with any good actors in his career.

    He was rarely paired with good actresses though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2020 Posts: 16,447
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    And there's none of that in OHMSS as it is.

    Well, aside from all the scenes of courtship and the marriage proposal...

    There's no passionate love, no.
    Revelator wrote: »
    If Pat Macnee could manage it, Roger Moore could manage it.

    He was also a better overall actor and less typed.

    Not really, no. They were pretty much of the same level: very charismatic stars of action TV shows, not the best actors in the world but great at doing what they did. Neither were the standard of Rigg in terms of range, but could easily hold their own next to her in terms of screen presence.
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's not as if Moore never appeared with any good actors in his career.

    He was rarely paired with good actresses though.

    Because that's completely different of course. 8-|
  • Posts: 2,918
    mtm wrote: »
    There's no passionate love, no.

    You must give the name of your oculist. On second thought, don't.
    Not really, no. They were pretty much of the same level: very charismatic stars of action TV shows

    Macnee's long pre-Avengers career was far more varied and multi-genre than Moore's and even included some Shakespeare.
    Because that's completely different of course.

    It is in some ways. A lots of Moore's appearances with venerable actors involved him in either in semi-deferential roles to his elders or playing his standard persona against rowdier and broader actors (Tony Curtis and Lee Marvin) in buddy films. He was rarely cast alongside substantial actresses, which points to how producers and Moore himself judged his strengths.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,850
    In general, I think that Moore (especially at the beginning of FYEO) makes a good widower. He, when required in TSWLM, for example, comes across as a man that has lost someone dear to him yet has gotten on with his life. He is wounded, yet assured. What I have trouble seeing is Moore actually being in the act of being wounded. In short, I can’t see him falling in love and be willing to leave MI6 to be with that woman. If love is blind, it is especially true for the young (I know from personal experience 😊), and here Lazenby’s inexperience actually sells the story. Moore never comes across as being *crazy* enough to make that leap.

    Having a new actor in the role also allows us (the viewer) to sort of re-set our expectations of who Bond is and how he will react to certain situations. And since I think I “know” how Moore would have reacted based on the movies that he was actually in, I don’t have that same willingness (or openness) to accept his Bond’s vulnerability.

    My two cents anyway. Carry on folks…..
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,447
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    There's no passionate love, no.

    You must give the name of your oculist. On second thought, don't.

    Yes yes, I'm blind. Keep 'em coming. This is dazzling stuff.
    One of the all-time greatest love stories in cinema history, I'm sure it's on lots of lists. Oh it isn't.

    Revelator wrote: »
    Not really, no. They were pretty much of the same level: very charismatic stars of action TV shows

    Macnee's long pre-Avengers career was far more varied and multi-genre than Moore's and even included some Shakespeare.

    Everyone's done Shakespeare, Moore even went to RADA. I'm judging them on their abilities: decent dramatic actors, even better with light comedy.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Because that's completely different of course.

    It is in some ways.

    No, it isn't. Actors are actors. Stop trying to make everything an argument, it's so tiring.

  • Posts: 2,918
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes yes, I'm blind. Keep 'em coming. This is dazzling stuff.

    If you insist!
    One of the all-time greatest love stories in cinema history, I'm sure it's on lots of lists. Oh it isn't.

    Why should it be? That's usually reserved for straight-up romances, which OHMSS isn't. But nowadays the film is consistently praised by audiences and critics for telling a convincing love story. If it didn't its modern reputation wouldn't be so high.
    Everyone's done Shakespeare, Moore even went to RADA.

    And Macnee did more Shakespeare. He did more of everything than Moore, as his IMDB listing shows. He had a more varied career before and after his big break.
    No, it isn't. Actors are actors. Stop trying to make everything an argument, it's so tiring.

    You're on a message board. If you find arguing tiring, why argue back?
    "Actors are actors" doesn't say anything about the individual strengths and weaknesses of actors, let along how different actors act with different actresses.
  • Posts: 15,139
    vzok wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't think Moore would have done any better with the love scenes than Lazenby. None of his films--Bond or non-Bond--have anything that resembles a deeply felt and convincingly portrayed romantic relationship.

    I don't think that's true: they're not written very deeply I know, but he's able to get a convincing bond of affection between himself and Octopussy, and to lesser extents Anya and Goodhead; even Stacey gets wined and dined and tucked into bed with something approaching respect. He has more of a bond with his leading ladies than Connery ever does for example- Roger is the romantic Bond.
    Plus he'd have been able to more than hold his own with Rigg- the Saint and Emma Peel would have been able to pitch it just right, much better than Lazenby who gets out-acted at every turn.

    I'd add to this that Moore in subsequent Bond films played the grieving widower very well, better I'd say than Dalton. And far better than Connery (albeit this was probably due to the writing of DAF).
    But they completely ignored that he was a widower

    Well, Bond was sort of going for revenge on the PTS, so I guess they didn't completely ignored it. It just seems that killing Blofeld's decoy was enough for him to get over his grief.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,316
    Connery should have read "Welcome to hell, Blofeld" differently, IMHO.
Sign In or Register to comment.