It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
He indeed was. McClory reminds me of that character from Bleak House who spends his entire adult life engaged in an endless boondoggle of lawsuit. A filmmaker who was even slightly an artist wouldn't have spent the majority of his career chasing after the film rights to another man's character. He would have made films of his own.
Even there he ultimately screwed himself--the reason Fleming and Bryce parted ways with him is because they felt McClory was incapable of getting the project off the ground. It took Broccoli and Saltzman, experienced film producers, to make Bond a reality. They did the hard work and McClory turned into a parasite.
A parasite sounds like he was merely milking profits. I see him in a different light. I agree he should have moved on but something tells me he liked being a disturber.
He wasn't milking profits, but he was trying to muscle in on the success of a film series other people had started and had made a success. And in the end he tried to seize the series through the courts, in a classic case of overreach and hubris. I like NSNA too, but its merits have something to do with the fact that McClory didn't have much creative input.
I'm not even sure I see that in NSNA. Aside from an acknowledgement of the passage of time, I never get the sense they're treating Bond any differently than Moore's was.
When didn't he?
As do I, and Robert Sellers' 'The Battle For Bond' is an engaging read.
I don't recall Moore's Bond being told he's only been facilitating field agent training. Or that he's got too many "free radicals" and needs to go to a health clinic. I never saw them acknowledge that Bond was losing a step. I thought it was a novel way to tackle the character. Edward Fox played M with more vinegar then the EON M ever did. Though Hamilton seemed to always enjoy M being grumpy. LOL!
A lot of that money went into Sir Sean's pocket. You're right. Nothing in either area you mention improves upon or is anywhere close to what TB did. TB made you want to take a holiday to the Bahamas (at least prior to the recent Hurricane Dorian) and seemed exotic. I don't get that feel with the way the islands are photographed in NSNA or anywhere else for that matter.
The director lays out a lot about the production, budget limitations affecting later filming, being stuck with a score he actually was compelled to swap tracks for other than the scenes that they were composed for.
Taking us back to the what if. I think Connery in 1977 would be a good match for Moore and Spy. Broccoli was pulling out all the stops in his, maybe he was afraid of Warhead and the possibility of a rival production? The research I conducted, admittedly not very deep said Paramount was willing to finance the movie with a budget of $22 million. I don't know if that's a decent sized budget for a film at this time.
Although we did get a battle of the bonds in the 80's. I think its fascinating for us to think about what might have been in 1977.
Roadphill, you're discounting the fact that even still in '77 people still wanted Connery back as Bond and Moore was coming off the underwhelming TMWTGG. So that project would've likely gotten a lot more attention just on that basis. It just would've depended on what they came up with if it had the epic feel with the Statue of Liberty finale or if it was the TB remake NSNA ended up.
Either way, Star Wars would've still dominated them both.
Lets get creative with the next "what if". Back in 1962 Harry and Albert were looking for the first actor to play James Bond on the silver screen. They cast a wide net and many auditioned. We all know they selected Connery for his physicality and ability to be dangerous. But lets pretend that instead of Connery the producers selected Roger Moore as the first James Bond. It's not too far out there as Roger did audition and was given some serious consideration.
What say you Mi6? What if Roger Moore was selected to play James Bond in 1962 in the film DN? What impact would this have on the series? Do you think the producers would have chose different book adaptions based on the different leading man? Would Roger stay in the role longer then Connery? Would Bond still explode and become a cultural phenom?
As charming as Roger was, on THE SAINT he played a tougher character. His fight sequences were more physical with a dynamic energy. Templar's hair was constantly tousled and out of place after an action sequence.
Roger's 1962 Bond might have been based more on Fleming, with the edge he gave Simon Templar, yet laced with Sir Roger charm.
In addition, he'd have had the advantage of those early films following the novels more closely and may have avoided some of the later more fantastical elements altogether.
Moore did not audition at that time. He said "I was, apparently, on the shortlist of would-be 007 actors back in 1962, when they were casting for Dr. No. I certainly wasn't aware of that, nor was I approached." And even the "short-list" part may not have been entirely accurate, because it was probably what Broccoli told Moore after he'd been cast. The trouble is that Broccoli was not a reliable or even truthful witness. In his autobiography he claimed Ian Fleming had wanted Roger Moore as Bond after seeing him in The Saint. But that show did not air until the day before the release of Dr. No.
Moore's chances of being cast in 1962 were therefore not so high. But if he had been, I think the Bond films might have enjoyed success but not as much as they did with Connery. I like Roger a lot, but ultimately he was a throwback to the David Niven type of hero, even when he displayed occasional flashes of darkness. For audiences in the 1960s, Connery's Bond was new and exciting kind of screen hero: sophisticated and dashing but also brutal and animalistic. To Americans this combination was even more surprising in a British hero. And no one portrayed that combination better than Connery.
Agree with you on the last comment. I see what your saying about fans wanting Connery back too. I just think once fans had seen a trailer of Spy, and heard/ read some of the contemporary reviews it would have still owned a Connery/Mclory effort. We will never know, though!
I think the film's still would have been a huge hit, as the above poster said, American audience's tended to be big fans of Moore. I do wonder, if Sir Rog had stayed all the way through to the end of his actual tenure, in 1985, would there have been some serious 'franchise fatigue'?
This captures my thoughts almost exactly. One can never underestimate the casting of Connery as a big part of the success the series became.
This is something I've thought about too. It would have been really interesting, and would have given more weight to the start of the FYEO PTS.
Also, Moore undercover as Sir Hilary Bray would have been great!
As far as Moore being cast in 1962, I'm sure the films would have been successful, but maybe slightly different; perhaps a bit closer to the Connery films in style rather than the lighthearted entries of the Moore era. I mentioned FYEO above, and I think that's closer to what we might have got – only with a younger Moore of course:
That might have turned out quite well if Peter Hunt had remained the director. Hunt directed Moore in Gold and Shout at the Devil and he managed to get better performances out of him than Hamilton did. The public also might have accepted Moore more easily than Lazenby, since the former already had a familiar and well-liked personality.
The other question I think this what if poses is would Roger be Bond from 62 all the way to 85? He seemed to relish the role and embrace all the trappings that came with it. Could he and Broccoli co-exist for that length of time? Or does the series get freshened up with each new actor? What about audiences?
Okay @MakeshiftPython I will mark down the OHMSS what if for a future what if scenario.
That would have been very interesting. A lot of people shout for Connery in this film, but I feel Sir Rog had a bit more vulnerability about him than Sean, which would have worked wonders in this.
With Peter Hunts kinetic editing of the fight scenes , we may have got a tougher first impression of Moore too, which would have stood him in great stead as his run progressed.