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

1505153555663

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 16,423
    Yes, the problem with the foster brother thing is there’s no drama drawn from it: it doesn’t go anywhere. All it means is Bond recognises him in Rome, and later Blofeld decides to torture him a bit. The impression is kind of given that Blofeld created Spectre in order to mess with Bond, but really all that happened is their paths crossed and he decided to mess with him a bit. But there’s no big dramatic angle coming from it, not least because Bond doesn’t seem to really care about their past together. It’s plot but not much story.
    It might’ve been nice if Blofeld’s obsession with Bond had been harming Spectre in some way and detailing their project.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,434
    From the desk of @SIS_HQ comes another what if....

    We all know the stars aligned for Roger Moore to assume the role of James Bond. But it may not have. Moore was starring with Tony Curtis in a show called the Persuaders. It acheived some level of success. However it winded down right when Broccoli and Salzman were looking for their next Bond.

    But what if the Persuaders hadn't ended, or if the producers of the show caught wind of Moore being cast and pulled a Brosnan ala Remington Steele and put the show back into production?

    What say you Mi6 what if Moore was not available to assume the role of Bond in 1973? Who would the producers cast? Would Moore ever play the role?

  • Posts: 15,125
    I don't think the franchise would have survived without Roger Moore. My bet is that they would have cast an American to appeal to the American market, or maybe they would have cast a much lesser known British actor. Either way they would have compared negatively to Sean Connery.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,423
    Yeah it's the old thing about how Sean ensured Bond was a hit, but Roger ensured it could stay a hit forever.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    From the IMDb trivia section for LALD...

    Amongst the actors to test for the part of Bond were Julian Glover, John Gavin, Jeremy Brett, Simon Oates, John Ronane, and Michael McStay. Frontrunner was Michael Billington. United Artists wanted an American to play Bond: Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman, and Robert Redford were all considered. Albert R. Broccoli, however, insisted that the part should be played by a Briton, and put forward Sir Roger Moore. After Moore was chosen, Billington remained on the top of the list, in the event that Moore would decline to come back for the next movie. Billington ultimately played a brief villainous role in the pre-credit sequence of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977).

    Michael Billington seems to be an actor that Cubby was fond of, and he kept him under consideration for many years.
    It's impossible to say, but without Roger Moore, would that Bond films have remained successful?
    Of the names on the list, Moore stands out as the clear winner.
    Also under consideration was Clint Eastwood, but he turned the role down, as he thought that Bond should be played by someone British.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Would Timothy have been considered in 73?
  • Posts: 15,125
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Would Timothy have been considered in 73?

    I doubt Dalton would have got the role at this time. I doubt he would have accepted it. If he had done, he would have failed. Not his fault, but for the franchise to survive Connery and thrive it needed Roger Moore.
  • Posts: 1,996
    In addition to the classic DB5, GF also featured a first generation Mustang and quickly ripped it apart. A few years later, we see an obviously physically different Bond in DAF driving a bloated, almost unrecognizable Mustang. Like SC, the era was ending.

    In 1973, the same year RM became the new Bond, Ford introduced the second generation Mustang, the Mustang II. Same name, but not really the same car. In fact a weak replacement. Halfway through RM's tenure--about the time RM hit his stride-- Ford beefed up the Mustang. A couple of more design changes came about, somewhere during the Dalton and Brosnan eras. Finally, in 2005, the Mustang went full on retro, returning to the look and style of the original, one year before DC became the next Bond.

    I don't argue with the success of the series during RM's tenure. Like that Mustang II, RM's films got the job done and took the series where it needed to go. His films were entertaining, but not satisfying. For fans such as myself, you were always aware of what was missing. Frankly, I don't know if any RM film would have been a good fit for SC, at least not as written. I don't spend time with what 'could have been.' DC's films weren't without issues, but like the newer Mustangs, a pretty close return to form.

    Moving forward, I hope both Ford and EON don't lose sight of what made Bond and Mustang iconic in the first place.
  • Posts: 2,918
    It's worth noting that while Moore enjoyed success with LALD, his follow-up was an all-around disappointment. What seems to have really saved the series was a three year break and change in approach, going from the lower-budget, cynical Hamilton-Mankiewicz films to the lavish, over-the-top, family-friendly spectacle of TSWLM. Moore ultimately proved his worth in that film and came into his own as Bond. Would TSWLM have worked as well with someone else? Probably not.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's worth noting that while Moore enjoyed success with LALD, his follow-up was an all-around disappointment. What seems to have really saved the series was a three year break and change in approach, going from the lower-budget, cynical Hamilton-Mankiewicz films to the lavish, over-the-top, family-friendly spectacle of TSWLM. Moore ultimately proved his worth in that film and came into his own as Bond. Would TSWLM have worked as well with someone else? Probably not.

    Great post, @Revelator! Indeed, TSWLM was the right project to firmly establish Moore in the role of Bond. The film played to his strengths. Moore was also the only Bond for MR, at least IMO. He could play things straight-faced without ever demanding that we take any of it seriously. That charming balance was his alone.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 1,996
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    He could play things straight-faced without ever demanding that we take any of it seriously.

    There you have it. He went along with the gag in a Leslie Nielsen sort of way. Which is why I could never take him seriously as Bond. His raised eyebrow and smirk always seemed to suggest no danger here, just having a lark.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 16,423
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's worth noting that while Moore enjoyed success with LALD, his follow-up was an all-around disappointment. What seems to have really saved the series was a three year break and change in approach, going from the lower-budget, cynical Hamilton-Mankiewicz films to the lavish, over-the-top, family-friendly spectacle of TSWLM. Moore ultimately proved his worth in that film and came into his own as Bond. Would TSWLM have worked as well with someone else? Probably not.

    I was watching LALD the other day though and it struck me that Roger is brilliant right from the start: he fills the screen and owns the role in a way that it's impossible to imagine Lazenby doing if he had stayed on, which I was trying to do. He is excellent right out of the gate.
    I agree that TSWLM is where it all came together and, with Gilbert, he had a different more relaxed and even suaver version of his 007 persona. Spy and MR are enormous films, bigger than anything Connery had been in the middle of even, and for an actor to remain as the star of that and not be dwarfed by it is no mean feat.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,138
    mtm wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's worth noting that while Moore enjoyed success with LALD, his follow-up was an all-around disappointment. What seems to have really saved the series was a three year break and change in approach, going from the lower-budget, cynical Hamilton-Mankiewicz films to the lavish, over-the-top, family-friendly spectacle of TSWLM. Moore ultimately proved his worth in that film and came into his own as Bond. Would TSWLM have worked as well with someone else? Probably not.

    I was watching LALD the other day though and it struck me that Roger is brilliant right from the start: he fills the screen and owns the role in a way that it's impossible to imagine Lazenby doing if he had stayed on, which I was trying to do. He is excellent right out of the gate.
    I agree that TSWLM is where it all came together and, with Gilbert, he had a different more relaxed and even suaver version of his 007 persona. Spy and MR are enormous films, bigger than anything Connery had been in the middle of even, and for an actor to remain as the star of that and not be dwarfed by it is no mean feat.

    What about YOLT?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,812
    Here's Dalton in 1976.





  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,789
    Here's Dalton in 1976.





    Hmmmm..... He's much more good looking in 1976 than he did in 1987.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 16,423
    I love how he’s always bigged up as a real Shakespearean thespian but he was doing Charlie’s Angels :D
  • Posts: 4,166
    CrabKey wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    He could play things straight-faced without ever demanding that we take any of it seriously.

    There you have it. He went along with the gag in a Leslie Nielsen sort of way. Which is why I could never take him seriously as Bond. His raised eyebrow and smirk always seemed to suggest no danger here, just having a lark.

    In fairness to Moore I wouldn't quite say that. He just knew when to play along with the absurdity of things in that rather ironic way. I'd argue Connery did exactly the same thing (in fact he perfected this approach), as have all of the cinematic Bonds to one extent or another. It just comes with the territory of the film version of the character. Which is fine. If there wasn't some of that irony an actor taking things too seriously all of the time would come off as absurd.

    Like Connery I think Moore knew when to play the scene 'straight'. In TSWLM alone he has many such moments. His reaction when Anya mentions Tracy, the scene when he reveals that he killed her boyfriend... heck, I'd argue throughout the climax of that film there's little to no 'eyebrow raising' and he looks genuinely worried and tense (especially when he's reprogramming the computer and breaking into the control room). It's one of the reasons why I feel Moore was the perfect successor to Connery. He had the ability to balance the irony and the seriousness of the role, and I don't think it's a skill many other actors at the time would have been able to hone in the same way.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2023 Posts: 16,423
    Yeah Connery played it tongue-in-cheek just as much, and in fact is a bit more guilty of being the press-a-button-escape Bond more than Roger was, I feel. He is ridiculously invulnerable and unruffled at times, whereas in contrast Roger actually (surprisingly) gets a few more moments of vulnerability and even warmth. It's tricky to picture Connery's Bond being as caring with the women in FYEO or OP as Moore's is.
    I agree that the general perception is the other way around, but if you look at something like YOLT compared with TSWLM, Connery is just pressing buttons and karate-chopping his way out of things, whereas Moore has the aforementioned moments with Anya, bomb diffusing tension etc. They're not massively vulnerable moments, no; but you can see an evolution happening to Bond's portrayal there.
  • Posts: 4,166
    I will say that I don't think I've ever seen a version of Bond quite as worried around explosives as Moore's was in TSWLM and OP. Even compared to Connery's Bond in GF.

    It does sell the seriousness of the situation, especially in the strange scenario of Bond dressed as a clown in OP. If Moore hadn't have played that scene 100%, straight it'd come off as absurd. For me anyway his acting makes the scene more nightmarish than anything.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    007HallY wrote: »
    For me anyway his acting makes the scene more nightmarish than anything.
    You know, I've never actually thought of it like that, but I do see what you mean. Nice take.

  • Posts: 4,166
    Venutius wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    For me anyway his acting makes the scene more nightmarish than anything.
    You know, I've never actually thought of it like that, but I do see what you mean. Nice take.

    For the longest time I actually assumed it'd been the product of an actual nightmare that someone like Cubby Broccoli had had (I think I got it confused with how the White subplot from DAF was created). Turns out as far as I know it was just thought up.

    It really does sound like an anxiety dream whoever I explain it to people though.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    007HallY wrote: »
    I will say that I don't think I've ever seen a version of Bond quite as worried around explosives as Moore's was in TSWLM and OP. Even compared to Connery's Bond in GF.

    It does sell the seriousness of the situation, especially in the strange scenario of Bond dressed as a clown in OP. If Moore hadn't have played that scene 100%, straight it'd come off as absurd. For me anyway his acting makes the scene more nightmarish than anything.

    And with Barry's score aiding the situation tremendously! I agree, Moore convinces me in that scene like no other Bond could have, I think. The clown outfit never takes the tension out for me. What does, is Franscisco popping out of the cannon tube as a tension reliever. It happens a bit too soon, IMO.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,434
    Strikes me as odd to say "Connery's Bond" when bring that character into the 70's. Connery played the character for the most part in the 60's. His character is somewhat of a time machine to that time. His Bond is the "Mad Men" Bond. Smokes, drinks, hits the ladies, cold and cool. His confidence and bravado were big. The role started small, or at least the plots did. Then to continue the success the producers added and added and added. A lesser actor would have taken a back seat to the proceedings by the time YOLT comes along, but Connery still owns the screen.

    Moore had two scripts that didn't play to his strengths. Or least didn't have the right tone for Moore, by TSWLM and MR the producers found their stride with Moore. If another actor was cast in 1973 I think the series may not have found a stride. Moore was able to be likeable even though the character in these two movies tends to be unlikeable. Tricking Solitaire to losing her virginity always left me cold, yet somehow we don't get turned completely off. His smacking around of Anders in the next film doesn't seem to have the effect that it was supposed to.

    I do acknowledge that Hamilton and co did the right thing by having none of the tropes that Connery's Bond had. No martini's, no hat to throw onto the hat rack, etc. I think Lazenby's portrayal of the character is hindered by the tropes and the audience is left to have that comparison. Whereas with LALD I have never heard, wonder how Connery would have played it.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,918
    Connery did bring Bond into the 70s with DAF though, and in a sense DAF is also the first Moore Bond, because the same people made it and there isn't much of a tonal difference between it and the following Hamilton/Mankiewicz films.

    Connery would have played LALD in the same way he played DAF--more relaxed than in the 60s, with occasional moments of anger & brute force. I think Hamilton/Mankiewicz's decision to avoid a few of the more obvious Connery tropes obscures the reality that between DAF and LALD they didn't profoundly change their approach to Bond. DAF was the template for LALD and TMWTGG.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited May 2023 Posts: 3,789
    thedove wrote: »
    Strikes me as odd to say "Connery's Bond" when bring that character into the 70's. Connery played the character for the most part in the 60's. His character is somewhat of a time machine to that time. His Bond is the "Mad Men" Bond. Smokes, drinks, hits the ladies, cold and cool. His confidence and bravado were big. The role started small, or at least the plots did. Then to continue the success the producers added and added and added. A lesser actor would have taken a back seat to the proceedings by the time YOLT comes along, but Connery still owns the screen.

    Moore had two scripts that didn't play to his strengths. Or least didn't have the right tone for Moore, by TSWLM and MR the producers found their stride with Moore. If another actor was cast in 1973 I think the series may not have found a stride. Moore was able to be likeable even though the character in these two movies tends to be unlikeable. Tricking Solitaire to losing her virginity always left me cold, yet somehow we don't get turned completely off. His smacking around of Anders in the next film doesn't seem to have the effect that it was supposed to.

    I do acknowledge that Hamilton and co did the right thing by having none of the tropes that Connery's Bond had. No martini's, no hat to throw onto the hat rack, etc. I think Lazenby's portrayal of the character is hindered by the tropes and the audience is left to have that comparison. Whereas with LALD I have never heard, wonder how Connery would have played it.

    Yes, I'm thinking about this too.

    I think Connery could've played in both LALD and TMWTGG, as I think, the Bond portrayal there is still mote in line with his version of Bond.

    The thing is, Moore did those like tricking Solitaire into having sex with him, there's no certain suaveness, so I'm left with uncomfortability, think of how Connery seduced Miss Taro or Fiona Volpe, there's the suaveness, there's the smoothness, with Moore, that scene and the way he played, it's straight out creepy because it's still made to remind us of Connery Bond habits.

    Especially the latter, that thing about Andrea Anders, it's really obvious that Moore was uncomfortable with doing that, and all I can see is Connery, or maybe even Dalton.

    Sure, as there's that two scenes given, Connery could've played it, I think, in a more convincing way that's somehow felt natural to him, not by being foreign and just new to things.

    I think Connery could've handled some humor too, he proved that in Goldfinger, the film that's close to a Moore Bond film to me, look at the way of how he seduced Pussy Galore in there, and I could easily see Moore in Goldfinger.

    I don't know but I think there's still some bit of similarities between Connery's Bond and Moore's Bond.

    For me, they're not that much far off, so I think Connery could still play in Moore's Bond films, the same as it is, but in a lot more convincing manner (especially with regards to LALD and TMWTGG).
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 2,918
    Moore's most unsavory moments with women are definitely holdovers from Connery. I think such material is more convincing with Connery (though still hard to defend) because at his core Connery (as an actor) had a rough streak of animal brutality, whereas Roger was a gentleman at heart. It's why Moore is the Bond who'd be the most fun to hang out with if he stepped out of the screen, whereas with Connery we'd be uneasy.
  • Posts: 1,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    Moore's most unsavory moments with women are definitely holdovers from Connery. I think such material is more convincing with Connery (though still hard to defend) because at his core Connery (as an actor) had a rough streak of animal brutality, whereas Roger was a gentleman at heart. It's why Moore is the Bond who'd be the most fun to hang out with if he stepped out of the screen, whereas with Connery we'd be uneasy.

    Astute. SC is my favorite Bond, but my sense is he wouldn't have been fun to be around unless we were very good friends. Moore's bio, My Word, My Bond, suggests he was probably a most gracious individual and enjoyable to be in the company of.

  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    Posts: 686
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Strikes me as odd to say "Connery's Bond" when bring that character into the 70's. Connery played the character for the most part in the 60's. His character is somewhat of a time machine to that time. His Bond is the "Mad Men" Bond. Smokes, drinks, hits the ladies, cold and cool. His confidence and bravado were big. The role started small, or at least the plots did. Then to continue the success the producers added and added and added. A lesser actor would have taken a back seat to the proceedings by the time YOLT comes along, but Connery still owns the screen.

    Moore had two scripts that didn't play to his strengths. Or least didn't have the right tone for Moore, by TSWLM and MR the producers found their stride with Moore. If another actor was cast in 1973 I think the series may not have found a stride. Moore was able to be likeable even though the character in these two movies tends to be unlikeable. Tricking Solitaire to losing her virginity always left me cold, yet somehow we don't get turned completely off. His smacking around of Anders in the next film doesn't seem to have the effect that it was supposed to.

    I do acknowledge that Hamilton and co did the right thing by having none of the tropes that Connery's Bond had. No martini's, no hat to throw onto the hat rack, etc. I think Lazenby's portrayal of the character is hindered by the tropes and the audience is left to have that comparison. Whereas with LALD I have never heard, wonder how Connery would have played it.

    Yes, I'm thinking about this too.

    I think Connery could've played in both LALD and TMWTGG, as I think, the Bond portrayal there is still mote in line with his version of Bond.

    The thing is, Moore did those like tricking Solitaire into having sex with him, there's no certain suaveness, so I'm left with uncomfortability, think of how Connery seduced Miss Taro or Fiona Volpe, there's the suaveness, there's the smoothness, with Moore, that scene and the way he played, it's straight out creepy because it's still made to remind us of Connery Bond habits.

    Especially the latter, that thing about Andrea Anders, it's really obvious that Moore was uncomfortable with doing that, and all I can see is Connery, or maybe even Dalton.

    Sure, as there's that two scenes given, Connery could've played it, I think, in a more convincing way that's somehow felt natural to him, not by being foreign and just new to things.

    I think Connery could've handled some humor too, he proved that in Goldfinger, the film that's close to a Moore Bond film to me, look at the way of how he seduced Pussy Galore in there, and I could easily see Moore in Goldfinger.

    I don't know but I think there's still some bit of similarities between Connery's Bond and Moore's Bond.

    For me, they're not that much far off, so I think Connery could still play in Moore's Bond films, the same as it is, but in a lot more convincing manner (especially with regards to LALD and TMWTGG).

    I can't really imagine Dalton doing that either. For all his coldness he was generally pretty sensitive with women (Pushkin's mistress notwithstanding). I'd say that continued with Brosnan to an extent. Craig brought back some of that Connery roguishness but without the violence.
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Moore's most unsavory moments with women are definitely holdovers from Connery. I think such material is more convincing with Connery (though still hard to defend) because at his core Connery (as an actor) had a rough streak of animal brutality, whereas Roger was a gentleman at heart. It's why Moore is the Bond who'd be the most fun to hang out with if he stepped out of the screen, whereas with Connery we'd be uneasy.

    Astute. SC is my favorite Bond, but my sense is he wouldn't have been fun to be around unless we were very good friends. Moore's bio, My Word, My Bond, suggests he was probably a most gracious individual and enjoyable to be in the company of.

    Personally I think I'd get on well with Connery Bond. Reckon he'd be a great wingman.
  • Moore’s debut in LALD has slowly become one of my favorite Bond performances over the years, so much so that I’ve grown to despise how he’s written and directed in TMWTGG. It’s a complete regression on the progress they made in his first film. I don’t blame that on Roger though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,423
    Yes, I've actually just watched the two in order for the first time I think, and you're absolutely right. He nails it in LALD absolutely, but then becomes slightly more of a tit in GG- and slightly more distant somehow too.
    He's not bad, but his Bond is just not as strong as in LALD somehow.

    Golden Gun is a fumble in so many ways: I think it kind of shows why Bond films shouldn't be rushed out in consecutive years!
Sign In or Register to comment.