The What if NTTD is the last EON produced Bond film? page 62

18911131463

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    thedove wrote: »
    Great posts and thoughts! I can see Roger in DN and GF. I have a hard time believing him and Shaw would have a convincing fight in FRWL. I could see Moore in TB and YOLT with some tweaks. Now OHMSS is an interesting one. I think the producers only cast Rigg to counterbalance Laz being a rookie. If Rigg stayed as Tracy and Moore was Bond I think that has some serious potential.

    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?

    If he ended up with seven films, his lucky number, we would have gotten a new Bond in 1973. Who could realistically take over from Moore then? Connery?

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Roadphill wrote: »
    What really intrigues me more is the idea of Moore taking the role with OHMSS as his debut.

    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.

    I would have liked Connery in OHMSS, but Moore would have been a strong alternative too I think. Speaking of vulnerability, there’s a very brief moment in LALD that I think showed that Moore had it in him to do more emotional moments that I don’t think the films ever gave him too much to play with. It’s when the receptionist tells Bond that his wife is expecting him, and the unflappable Moore Bond suddenly looks like someone walked over his grave, then a beat later you can see the wheels turning in his head as he’s mentally picking himself up and the cynicism is kicking back in as expressed in his delivery of “an incurable romantic, Mrs. Bond”. I can only imagine if he had done OHMSS he would have knocked it out of the park.
  • Posts: 12,526
    If Roger Moore had been cast back in 1962? That would be a record amount of movies that no following 007 will ever pass! :))
  • Posts: 5,993
    Still, if that had happened, we would not have had The Saint, or The Persuaders. And it would have been a shame, I guess we can all agree on that.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Gerard wrote: »
    Still, if that had happened, we would not have had The Saint, or The Persuaders. And it would have been a shame, I guess we can all agree on that.

    Connery could have been The Saint.
  • Posts: 5,993
    Perhaps, but he couldn't have been Lord Brett Sinclair.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,269
    Gerard wrote: »
    Perhaps, but he couldn't have been Lord Brett Sinclair.

    Kingsley Amis (in The James Bond Dossier, 1965) thought there was no way that Sean Connery could have portrayed Sir Hilary Bray in a future film version of OHMSS. Amis cited this as one example of why Connery was, in his view, miscast in the role of Bond. That's a view I would say that few commentators would have shared at the time, though Amis never really seemed to be a big fan of the Bond films as opposed to the books.

    As it turned out of course Amis needn't have worried, nor had George Lazenby to worru either as George Baker dubbed over the scenes where he was in cover as Bray. I assume that the same thing would have been done with Connery's voice had he actually filmed OHMSS, given how loath he was to give up his own Scottish accent in parts.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I’m not sure. Connery briefly played up a Dutch accent in DAF.
  • Posts: 2,917
    Roadphill wrote: »
    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

    Other way around I think: The Offence and Robin and Marian show that Connery could be very vulnerable indeed. There's nothing equivalent in Roger's filmography.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    I always read of how Connery Bond falling in love “isn’t believable” by some fans because he was a superman by YOLT, but I always believed Connery showing that level of vulnerability for the first time as Bond would have been a revelation and make the ending more potent. Here’s a man we’ve gone on adventures with so many times finally letting his guard down with Tracy, whereas seeing that with a 29 year old Aussie in his place just wasn’t as compelling. At least in my opinion.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited September 2019 Posts: 18,269
    I’m not sure. Connery briefly played up a Dutch accent in DAF.

    Well that's true. I'd momentarily forgotten about that! Maybe he could have played Sir Hilary after all? Sadly, we'll never know though I do find Amis' occasional pronouncements on the Bond films very interesting.
    Revelator wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    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

    Other way around I think: The Offence and Robin and Marian show that Connery could be very vulnerable indeed. There's nothing equivalent in Roger's filmography.

    I'd say Roger Moore's outstanding performance in The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970) covers the same sort of ground. There's definitely vulnerability displayed in his performance there. Perhaps he didn't quite have Connery's range, but you get my meaning.
  • Posts: 16,153
    I always read of how Connery Bond falling in love “isn’t believable” by some fans because he was a superman by YOLT, but I always believed Connery showing that level of vulnerability for the first time as Bond would have been a revelation and make the ending more potent. Here’s a man we’ve gone on adventures with so many times finally letting his guard down with Tracy, whereas seeing that with a 29 year old Aussie in his place just wasn’t as compelling. At least in my opinion.

    Couldn't agree more. Audiences probably would have been far more moved had Connery stuck around. In addition, Bond in the novel is weary and seasoned, which would have suited Connery at the time.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    I love the opinions and thoughts on OHMSS. I can suddenly see Moore playing Bond in this film. One film that I have trouble with Moore being Bond would be FRWL. That train showdown with Grant is the climax of the film for me and certainly a highlight for the series. Can we see Roger playing that scene and fight with the same coolness and physicality of Connery? How do you think Moore versus Shaw would look?

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,779
    I've been led into this Moore concept as well, @thedove.

    Regarding a face-off with Red Grant, Moore had the height/stature. And Moore being a little more refined offsets the brutal psychopath. Then it goes back to staging and directing and filming. He can play it cool. If the filmmakers kept the scene as tough, it could have been a game changer regarding Moore. Who later was over the top successful in the Bond role. It all could have added to.

  • Posts: 2,917
    Moore had height, but as an actor he didn't move particularly well or distinctly, certainly not in comparison to Connery, Lazenby, or Craig. Even the best editing can't compensate for that, because it can't replace the arc of an actor's body when he makes a punch, how fast he arcs it, or a thousand other details of combat. In the Moore era the filmmakers found many ways to make the fights interesting, but none were notable for any physical ferocity or aggression on Moore's part. Contrast this to Lazneby, whose prowess would have been evident even without hunt and Glen's editing. Moore was cool actor, who used stillness to his advantage in dialogue and dramatic scenes. As a fighter he was never more than adequate.
  • Posts: 5,993
    Just from Cracked :

    708769_v2.jpg
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    What really intrigues me more is the idea of Moore taking the role with OHMSS as his debut.

    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.

    I would have liked Connery in OHMSS, but Moore would have been a strong alternative too I think. Speaking of vulnerability, there’s a very brief moment in LALD that I think showed that Moore had it in him to do more emotional moments that I don’t think the films ever gave him too much to play with. It’s when the receptionist tells Bond that his wife is expecting him, and the unflappable Moore Bond suddenly looks like someone walked over his grave, then a beat later you can see the wheels turning in his head as he’s mentally picking himself up and the cynicism is kicking back in as expressed in his delivery of “an incurable romantic, Mrs. Bond”. I can only imagine if he had done OHMSS he would have knocked it out of the park.

    That is an excellent moment. I think he would have nailed OHMSS.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I've been led into this Moore concept as well, @thedove.

    Regarding a face-off with Red Grant, Moore had the height/stature. And Moore being a little more refined offsets the brutal psychopath. Then it goes back to staging and directing and filming. He can play it cool. If the filmmakers kept the scene as tough, it could have been a game changer regarding Moore. Who later was over the top successful in the Bond role. It all could have added to.

    That's a tough one. Connery had a different type of physicality to Moore, despite Sir Rog's size. I would guess that with a few nifty editing tricks, plus Moore being a fair bit younger at the time probably would have helped the energy of the scene.

    He certainly wouldn't have done it better than Connery, but with a little help from the the chaps behind the scenes, I'm sure he could have done it excellently.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    As always wonderful thoughts and again I learned a few things along the way. I think it's time we move on to another scenario. Since we chatted up OHMSS so much in this last what if how about we tackle a big "what if".

    We all know the famous decision of George to not return to the role. He was offered a 7 picture deal and turned it down. He thought Bond was passé and the days of a secret agent who wore suits and such was done. But what if George didn't turn it down. What if George had signed on the dotted line? Would this eliminate Moore getting to play Bond? Would the series had the commercial success with the Aussie? Would George develop his acting skills and rival Sean in terms of popularity?

    What say you Mi6? What if George Lazenby had signed on the dotted line and became the Bond of the 70's?
  • Posts: 16,153
    The marketing for OHMSS probably would have been different had George not decide during production that he would only do the one film.

    As it stands, the campaign for OHMSS mostly emphasized James Bond rather than Lazenby as the "new Bond". Had he agreed to continue, he most certainly would have been backed by a stronger marketing campaign, which might have helped his popularity.
    But truthfully, Lazenby just wasn't accepted as Bond at the time. Audiences and critics mostly dismissed him. Sad to say, because, IMO he did an excellent job for a beginning actor.
    Had George stayed on and OHMSS been the GF, TB success it might have been, then he could have grown into the role.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Interesting. I think it would be pretty safe to say that Moore wouldn't have been a part of the series, had this happened. The big questions are, would George have grown into the role (and by proxy as an actor). Secondly, would the likes of LALD and TSWLM looked the same with George? I rather think they wouldn't.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    It seems that whatever actor played 007, with entries like DAF and LALD, the Bond films were heading into a certain style and tone that would of course culminate in MR. I wonder if with George, this would have still held true. If George had returned, it's likely Peter Hunt would have returned, and between OHMSS and his supposed involvement in the early FYEO scripts, it seems his interest was in the more human, down-to-earth Bond stories, so maybe based on the strength of his "vision", and considering OHMSS was a success (not a financial flop and IIRC it got good reviews), he would have been allowed to direct George again, and the seventies Bond films wouldn't have become lighthearted extravaganzas set in outer space or underwater cities. It makes sense that by the time of FYEO, Cubby and Michael G. Wilson would have been less receptive to Hunt's style, beacuse even if they wanted to take Bond "back to Earth", it was the Moore era and MR had just happened, so they probably didn't want to make too radical a change.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited September 2019 Posts: 7,314
    Well, right off the bat we know that Tracy's death was going to be at the beginning of DAF had George stayed, so that film would've been radically different. It's hard to picture Lazenby in some of the zanier, over the top moments that the 70's films presented us with, but it does seem inevitable that the series was headed in that direction no matter what. Perhaps it wouldn't have pushed the limits that the Moore era did with George at the helm though.

    I think Lazenby showed great potential as an actor in OHMSS and I think he could have improved over time had he stuck with it. However, it just seems like it would've been similar to Dalton's situation, where he was never truly accepted (in America at least) and the franchise wouldn't be able to sustain long term success with him as Bond. It's definitely the biggest "what if" in the history of the series.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 17,753
    Lazenby as Bond in the 70's is an interesting one (and by the looks of it, he was only a signature away from that happening). The films would maybe have been slightly less humorous in style, but I think the undercover scenes at Piz Gloria with Lazenby as Sir Hilary Bray showed that he had a bit of comedic timing too – at least I find those scenes very funny. Maybe he would've settled alright into the more comedic Bond of the 70's?

    With Lazenby as Bond in the 70's, I expect that EON would have marketed those films quite heavily, in order to convince the audience that Lazenby was a worthy successor of Connery.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited September 2019 Posts: 12,480
    Oh seriously, I would have hated that. Possibly thrown up.
    Just kidding, but there is NO way I wanted Laz as Bond ever again.
    So thankful he bowed out.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    I really like Lazenby. I honestly think that if he'd done a few more films (with Hunt directing at least one more) then he could have been one of the best Bonds. He showed shades of Connery like magnetism in OHMSS but also showed a vulnerability that Connery never did. The only thing that let him down was his sometimes wooden delivery, so I do think that he would have gotten better over time and be thought of quite highly in the end.

    But I don't know how good it would have been for Bond in the long run. OHMSS was a success but Lazenby was similar to Connery. To move out of his shadow I think they needed an actor who could really make it his own and do something different (Cubby understood this too, that's why Moore didn't drive an Aston Martin, never said "shaken not stirred", etc).

    If we didn't have Moore and if Lazenby had carried on into the 70s instead then I think that Bond would have been stuck trying to emulate Connery, and I don't know if we would have had such a continuous run of films. I think the series would have eventually died with Lazenby or the next guy for a good few years before a reboot/remake in the 2000s or 2010s. Moore wasn't just a great James Bond, he was one of the most important. If he hadn't broke the mould and redefined what Bond could be then I really don't know if we would have gotten films into the 80s and 90s.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    I don't disagree @thelivingroyale but how much of that credit goes to the producers and Guy Hamilton (trying to not have any of the same character traits as Connery's Bond)? I think George had to deal with a script that in a lot of ways kept harkening back to Connery. The whole finding gadgets in his drawer, what the hell? Why have any of that stuff in there, it just reminds the audience that we aren't seeing "the other fella".

    Yes the whole tone of DAF would need to change for if they kept the Tracy death as the PTS then it would be a more obvious continuation and revenge movie. I wonder if Telly would have returned as Blofeld. (scroll back a few pages if you would like to see what Mi6 felt about that! LOL!

    I could see Lazenby working quite well in LALD, and even TMWTGG. Once we get to TSWLM and MR I have a harder time seeing Lazenby in the role. Maybe it would be like Dalton, he does a few and then moves on for the next Bond.

    Most of what I see here on the boards it seems people want Lazenby to be in DAF and then stop his run as Bond. I don't recall anyone suggesting that he continue for the same number of films as Moore ended up doing.

    Also if Lazenby did do the character for that many, does Dalton get considered as his replacement? As Dalton brings much of the same to the role in the danger aspect. Maybe this sets off a whole new domino chain?
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,841
    OHMSS is a great Bond movie, and while I think that Lazenby acquitted himself quite well in the role, his departure was probably for the best.

    Greatly aided by the original Fleming source material, Peter Hunt’s direction (of the movie, not him necessarily from what I’ve read), a great supporting cast (Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas, Gabriele Ferzetti, etc.), his short comings as an actor don’t really hurt the movie. In fact, I think his inexperience at being Bond, actually helped its believability, if anything. That said, how would he have done with a lesser script, or a lesser supporting cast? My gut, tells me – not as well.

    In Roger Moore EON found a Bond with both significant history in the business, and who was also willing and able to be the public “face” of the enterprise that is 007. And he was politically savvy enough to make it work. Given Lazenby’s independent streak (and some of say lack of political tack), how would he have done in that role? And in many ways, that role is just as important as the acting one.

    In an ideal world, I would have liked to see Lazenby (and Hunt) return for DAF to complete that cycle of films, before handing it off to another actor.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    There definitely would have needed to be that "Bond gets revenge" film after OHMSS to just tie loose ends. After that, I assume the series would have resumed the way we actually saw it in the 70s, and in many ways might have been perfectly suitable for Lazenby.

    I'm not exactly a Lazenby fan, but I don't dislike him. I think having OHMSS as his debut was kind of a mistake. It's a story that should have had a much more weary older Bond, and with an actor who already had a couple of Bonds under his belt in order to earn that more dramatic and emotional take. I just didn't buy it from Lazenby. He was good for a first time actor, but not as THE dramatic lead. That said, I honestly believe a movie like LALD would have been better suited to Lazenby more than OHMSS as it's much more action oriented and fast paced. He definitely would have done better portraying a physically agile Bond than Moore did. He just comes in, does his quips, fights good fights, calls it a day, rinse and repeat.

    But would the public have grown on him? That's a tough one to answer. He was already out the door before OHMSS came out, so many people were not walking into that movie thinking this would be the start of a new Bond's run. I don't blame the public for dismissing Lazenby then, as he pretty much dismissed himself.
  • edited September 2019 Posts: 12,837
    thedove wrote: »
    I don't disagree @thelivingroyale but how much of that credit goes to the producers and Guy Hamilton (trying to not have any of the same character traits as Connery's Bond)? I think George had to deal with a script that in a lot of ways kept harkening back to Connery. The whole finding gadgets in his drawer, what the hell? Why have any of that stuff in there, it just reminds the audience that we aren't seeing "the other fella".

    True, there are a lot of different people that deserve credit (for stuff like changing the brands and losing the catchphrase especially, Moore wouldn't really get a say in that would he). But at the same time, none of those changes would have mattered if they didn't have an actor to make them work, and Moore's Bond is so close to his own general persona that I think he deserves most of the credit.

    I think the gadgets in the draw and the other callbacks were a learning curve as they'd never done an actor change before. It sort of makes sense on paper. That stuff is meant to reassure the audience that it's still the same Bond they've seen in all the other movies. But of course all you really do is end up reminding them of Connery. At least they learned from their mistakes with LALD.

    The thing that bugs me most about the calbacks in OHMSS is that it's a film that doesn't really care about continuity at all. On the one hand they seem to just be focused on adapting the book. Who cares that we've already done YOLT, continuity doesn't matter, so Bond and Blofeld don't recognise eachother. Which is a fine approach in itself. But the callbacks to the Connery films make that harder to go along with because it makes it clear that this is the same world as the other movies. They were ignoring continuity while also bringing attention to it. Brilliant film but that was a pretty weird approach to take.
Sign In or Register to comment.