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
Moore was a lot more versatile than people gave him credit for, and I think Octopussy best showcases that.
As for the question, I’ll flip the switch and say that I’d love to see Moore in Diamonds are Forever. I’d love to see banter between Moore’s Bond and Gray’s Blofeld, and him facing off against Wint and Kidd.
LALD a mix of the fantastical and the reality. First time Bond encounters a super-natural foe.
TMTWGG serious in places and downright silly in others
Spy a BIG large adventure with huge set pieces and a global scale adventure
MR Spy on steroids! Way OTT
FYEO a grounded adventure with low stakes
OP a mix between Eyes and Spy? Or is it eyes with larger stakes
AVTAK back to the outrageous adventures of the first few Moore films
Dalton's Bond was played the same in both movies, straight. Brosnan was played more along the lines of Spy or MR. Craig, well his was rather straight on blunt instrument with some mellow drama thrown in. Connery I suppose is the closest to Moore in terms of how his character was portrayed on the screen.
Per those guidelines I would say Sean in TMWTGG mainly for the 003 following reasons:
001) Sean vs. Christopher Lee sounds more interesting than Roger vs. Charles Gray.
002) I don't think Jill St. John's Tiffany Case would've had worked as well onscreen with Moore's "Peter Franks" as she did with Connery's.
003) Perhaps most importantly after the first 5 Connery films and 1 Lazenby one with a tragic ending I wonder if the public would've taken to "The Saint" taking over the role of Bond in a more comical, Matt Helm-style Bond film without Connery having returned to make that kind of Bond film first.
So in this regard, I'd be interested to see Connery in The Man With The Golden Gun go up against Christopher Lee's Scaramanga, but I'm afraid that the goofy bits of the film wouldn't likely to work with him in the role (like the Kung Fu/Martial Arts bits, and even that car stunt with a slide whistle, or Bond pinching a sumo wrestler's butt or even his seduction of Saida which for me comes off as a bit goofy too), many people are saying that they've made Roger Moore a bit like Connery's Bond in this film, but for me, it's not, they've made Moore a comical, yet annoying childish brat in this film, and that's not Connery's Bond at least.
But if the film is more suited to Connery Bond, without any of the dated goofy parts of the film, it would've worked.
And having Moore to do DAF (which was set in 1971) means no The Persuaders, so a strong no, I just couldn't imagine a world without my favorite show.
Hence, I’d rather see Roger in DAF.
I agree, but just have this thought now, if Moore would be in DAF (which was made in 1971), and if it would be the means for losing The Persuaders (which is a show I loved), I'd rather not to.
I'd add the 004th reason: There would be no The Persuaders, I still prefer the reality where Moore made that show, it's one of my favorites.
Oh I don’t think the Sean of YOLT and DAF would have any issue with those bits: he’s just a comedic as Roger, and generally more cartoonish, really. Oddly it’s the more dramatic bits of TMWTGG I struggle seeing his Bond do more than those, but there aren’t many.
It’s funny: I don’t think there’s any of Sean’s films that Roger couldn’t have done (I’m not saying he’d have been as good, but there’s little his characterisation would be uncomfortable with), whereas I’m not sure I could see Sean’s cartoony Bond doing some of the 80s stuff. Even the Bond of NSNA is a bit more of a thinly sketched gag machine than the contemporary Bond of Octopussy, who gives a few whiffs of past regret and a bit more of a mature relationship with Op herself. So weirdly I’d say that Roger might’ve been the more versatile 007 of the two!
But the comedic bits in TMWTGG were to say, too far, really.
Can you imagine Sean's Bond in that Karate School scenes? Or pinching a Sumo Wrestler's butt? That would've been too far from Sean's Bond.
I could almost see Sean's Bond at least having a bit of dignity not doing those 😅
I vote for Sean in TMWTGG.
Yeah, really easily. Can you imagine him throwing a flask of his own urine into a baddie's face and then doing a comedy double-take? It's all in his Bond's wheelhouse.
I don't think he even does anything silly in the Karate School anyway.
You do realise that such scenes are scripted, and only rarely do directors allow an actor ad-lib or play a scene differently than what's in the script.
Whilst the Karate school scene is played for a laugh when Hip's nieces show up, Bond himself doesn't let the scene down, or embarrass himself.
Exactly.
Of course, Connery Bond had his shares of comedy scenes, it's not out of the character, yes even the urine scene in NSNA, it's funny, but not out of character.
But those scenes in TMWTGG, it felt already out of character, like Bond pinching a sumo wrestler's butt? Bond choking up the bullet from Saida's navel? Or Bond in a Karate robe taking up martial arts? Just far too over the top.
Sure there's the Asian teachings in YOLT, but the way it's executed, it's meant to be serious, it's not outlandish or over the top, even the way Bond reacted to those scenes, it's still natural or serious, not exaggerated.
Meanwhile, those scenes in TMWTGG were obviously no threat, no danger at all, and those things are already far from Bond, out of character, yes, simply cartoonish, those things are out of Bond's depth, it's no different to going in space kind of thing in Moonraker, or doing that Tarzan Yell and literally telling a tiger to sit in Octopussy, even that car stunt in TMWTGG had that cartoonish slide whistle.
Connery's Bond had his shares of humor and comedy, but not exaggerated as Moore's Bond doing those scenes, not outlandish or over the top, where there's no presence of seriousness.
Like what I've said, I'd be interested to see Connery doing The Man With The Golden Gun against Christopher Lee's Scaramanga, as long as the over the top bits are toned down.
He can't wear a karate suit? I'm not really seeing your limits here.
He squeezed the guy's bum to try and beat him... I don't really see how this is more unacceptable than the urine-flinging gag and subsequent reaction.
It seems there's so much in the Bond films that you find unacceptable that it's quite hard to keep up with! :)
Did you think the jetpack was serious, out of interest?
Well, I'm answering to @CrabKey's post.
It's in the way it's executed, the urine scene in NSNA was executed in a serious way, that there's a danger, both of these characters are serious, and even the atmosphere of that scene is serious.
Meanwhile, Bond pinching a sumo wrestler's butt is executed in a comic way that the sumo wrestler flipped Bond up, and Bond pinched his butt (yes, with that close up shot), there's even Nick Nack disguised as a statue in there, it's meant to be comic and fun, not serious and no threat at all.
Okay, I do guarantee you Bond in a jetpack in TB, but still not over the top or outlandish as anything in the Moore Era (it's like the Aston Martin with gadgets in Goldfinger).
I must've been watching a different scene! :D
It's a bit light, but also Nick Nack is about to kill Bond, which is as serious as an assassin stopping to watch a football game in a health spa as he attacks a spy.
Sure, totally normal and 'serious' to find jetpacks lying around :))
I like NSNA. But I always liked it because it was an obvious spoof (and every critic and Bond fan felt that way in 1983, and most preferred it over its direct competitor OP, by the way), with cast and crew actively deconstructing everything that was serious about Bond (at least most of the time). And the urine sample scene was as far out satirically and ironically as anything in the movie. Maybe one could take the fight serious until then, but everybody laughed their butts off when the henchman was knocked out by basically being pissed on. That was the end of seriousness there.
As to SC coming across as cartoonish, no! For me the Moore series has always been Bond-lite. More obvious humor than the Connery series and far more silliness. But again all a matter of opinion.
I don't disagree that the karate girls bit is a touch naff- in fact I don't even mind them (and it's not all that far removed from Bambi & Thumper): the bit that annoys me is where Hip drives off without Bond: that's just a touch too much stupid for me. I think that may be the most spoofy and dumb Bond has gone, in fact.
But I'm not sure Connery always did it straight face. There's much more in DAF which is outwardly silly, but you're not supposed to be taking much of TB or YOLT seriously, I'd say.
I actually think he checked back in in DAF if anything: he was giving a proper performance (unlike in YOLT)- it was just a more comedic one. He was earning a million, don't forget: I think he probably felt that he should be properly engaged in the work for that. And it wasn't really a million miles from his previous Bond stuff, just leaning on the wink-to-camera a touch more.
I think you can probably draw a line from Connery in DAF, to Roger, to stuff like Burt Reynolds in Smokey and Cannonball.
That's pretty harsh. If there was a Bond film Connery deserved 50p for appearing in it was NSNA.
If Connery had made TMWTGG in '74, then we might have missed out on this...
In 1971:
A.) Lazenby should be doing Diamonds Are Forever as a revenge sequel to OHMSS (with Savalas reprising his role as Blofeld, Gabrielle Ferzetti returning as Draco, and a recast actress as Irma Bunt).
And.....
B.) While Moore was still doing The Persuaders, before taking over as Bond in 1973 (as it is), the only thing I would change is Felix Leiter in LALD would be played by Tony Curtis instead (sorry, David Hedison, but I just prefer the former, more better chemistry and banter with Moore).
Lets dive into the literary world for this next one. We have had Anthony Horowitz finish all 3 continuation novels in different stages of the Fleming Bond time period. Last year Charlie Higson came out with a novella in conjunction with the new King and the coronation! He set his Bond in modern times and gave us a cracking good yarn.
So dear Mi6 Community
Would you rather the next Bond continuation novel be set in Fleming era or modern era?