›

Moore was 45 in LALD, how long did EON expect him/Bond to last?

Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
edited August 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 13,355
So Roger Moore was 45 in <i>Live And Let Die</i> and that got me thinking, why hire someone older than Connery in on ongoing film series? Did EON not expect Bond to last with Moore and for the series to end (as many thought it would), or perhaps they only wanted him to do a few films.

What do you think?
«134

Comments

  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Moore had such a baby face all his life that he looked much younger at 45 than Connert did at 35!

    I suspect that EON figured that Moore would last for about 4 movies, which at the time released every 2 years. So about 8 years, possibly 10, keeping him up to about 1981-82
  • WillardWhyteWillardWhyte Midnight Society #ProjectMoon
    Posts: 784
    Nobody knew how good Moore would be as a replacement, and well they took a shot with him. LALD is a good film along with FYEO, so I have always been surprised how long he lasted in the role, since he had two good films. There's no way EON could have believed that Moore could be as good as Connery (and it shows in his films).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,718
    An other good question is why on earth EON kept Moore for his last 3 films, when box office attendance was dropping fairly rapidly from 1981 to 1985 ? Surely EON should have let Moore go and find someone else ?

    But let me make this CLEAR : Roger Moore IS the best Bond, and by a fair margin ! I am damn happy he made 7 films, as they are 7 excellent films, cult classics, wonderful adventures that I enjoy !


  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 13,355
    An other good question is how on earth EON kept Moore for his last 3 films, when box office attendance was dropping fairly rapidly from 1981 to 1985 ?

    Money. It seemed to be an ongoing game. I think EON would have gone elsewhere had someone suitable been found.

    What was Dalton doing in the early's 80's?

    EDIT: Second thoughts I'd rather not steer this off topic with post five.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    That's a good question. They seemed to be very happy with MR's box office, and were happy with FYEO as a film, as we can head in the making of on the DVDs. There had already been talk about his departure, which makes me believe EON saw no suitable replacement as they kept going back to Moore and supposedly he was holding out for more money. The only valid explanation I can see is that they really wanted to keep him or had decent replacements.

    They did screen test Michael Billington for OP if I recall, he couldn't possibly have been the best candidate imo, so yes, I do think EON wanted Moore to keep going.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Up to Octopussy I could see it, he was needed to beat Connery in the other "film" plus he tied with Connery's six. But what were the circumstances under which he returned for A View To A Kill? Even Moore thought "six is enough" after Octopussy...
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Well again, as he was asking for a lot of money, they likely preferred going back to him rather than face the unknown. Who know what would have happened had another man been cast in 1985!

    Worse case: No Dalton era :-q
    Best case: An extended Dalton era :-bd
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    With the returns diminishing why not see who else is out there? Worse did the box office of A View To A Kill contribute the six year hiatus later in the decade, could that have been avoided with a fresh face as '85 or Bond already on his "way out" regardless of who played?

    Don't forget people missed Moore once he was gone despite his age due to him doing so many damn films.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    I believe people still liked Moore but needed a bit of a break from James Bond flicks.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    I believe people still liked Moore but needed a bit of a break from James Bond flicks.
    Six films later I can't argue with that. It sure has worked.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited August 2011 Posts: 4,521
    I think it be Roger be loyaal and actors who keep staying with him besides good results of the movie. This said Lois Maxwell quite with AVTAK too and mabey Roger Moore whas cheaper. Also outside he be the moost loyal actor who playing James Bond.

    But indeed if there is no replacement there is nothing wrong with paying a litle bit from the actor you already have better then waiting 4 years or longer what can have been a bigger problem for the franchise mabey in 1986.

    For example if Bond 23 flops there is stil not reasen to fire Daniel Craig because of earlier money. I think earlier Daniel Craig his les loyal to the franchise be earlier reasen to let him go. Whyle i have my complanes about Daniel Craig era, on the moment i think he should stay for 5 movies atleast. There be a discussion on the old forums that Brosnan mabey also should have made 6 movies with Bond 22 in 2007. End conclusion of the Brosnan era be that Brosnan should have playing James Bond in 5 movies. Actor/his movies must grow in to the part and that be only reasen why i hope Daniel Craig make 5 movies atleast, mabey a 6th.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,718
    An extended Dalton tenure (starting in '83 or '85) would have brought the franchise at exactly the same place as now- the attendance would have continued to drop rapidly all the way until 1989 (legal issues). I rest by my case that a longer Dalton tenure would have killed the franchise. Without the legal issues, box office attendance would be dangerously low, so low EON would call have called it quits sometimes after '91 or '93 if we were lucky. If you want a longer Dalton tenure, it must have started in 1984 and 1985 and still end in 1989. Anything after 1989, and the franchise is dead.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    @DC It depends if the public interest left due to Moore's age in parts after AVTAK or not, it's entirely possible that a new Bond for AVTAK could have brought back interest a bit quicker.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,718
    @Luds Yes, Dalton and TLD increased the attendance, but all that was for nothing - LTK made LESS than AVTAK, the least attended movie prior to LTK. So Even if Dalton had started in AVTAK, attendance would drop again in 1987 and again in 1989 for his third outing... As I see it, Dalton was condemned to a 2 tenure outing, or he'd be known as the Bond who killed the franchise.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    It's possible but not certain. IF public interest was partly lost due to Moore's extended tenure, and I'm certainly not proposing that it was, it's a possibility though. LTK certainly did have very disappointing numbers in the states in parts due to its strong Box Office competition and lack of publicity. In the 80s, UA/MGM was in pretty bad shape. It's quite possible that any scenario would have resulted in similar outcome.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Not just in the USA, Luds. LTK made 39.1 million ticket sales world wide... That is 9 million less than TLD, 42 millions less than GE and 46 millions less than MR. Another Dalton film that would most likely decrease attendance, and the series is over.
  • JobeGDGJobeGDG
    edited August 2011 Posts: 107
    Another good question is why on earth EON kept Moore for his last 3 films, when box office attendance was dropping fairly rapidly from 1981 to 1985? Surely EON should have let Moore go and find someone else?
    They tried. James Brolin's screentest is on the UE DVD (it's abysmal), Luds mentioned Michael Billington, and I'm sure there were others. None of them measured up, so they kept bringing Moore back, and Moore, gent that he was, was a sport about it.

    It seems to me that hitting release dates at two-year intervals was a higher priority in those days; EON wanted to replace their lead, but couldn't find anyone suited to the job, so they kept the man they wanted to replace in order to keep making films.
    Not just in the USA, Luds. LTK made 39.1 million ticket sales world wide...
    Uh, no. $34.5M domestic + $121.5M foreign = $156M worldwide. And your numbers for TLD, GE, and MR could use some checking too, I think.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,718
    Not just in the USA, Luds. LTK made 39.1 million ticket sales world wide...
    Uh, no. $34.5M domestic + $121.5M foreign = $156M worldwide. And your numbers for TLD, GE, and MR could use some checking too, I think.

    I was talking about TICKET SALES, not box office earnings... 8-| LTK only sold 39.1 million tickets worldwide. You do know what ticket sales are ? :-? Maybe you didn't read correctly...
  • JobeGDGJobeGDG
    Posts: 107
    Well, don't I look silly.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Another good question is why on earth EON kept Moore for his last 3 films, when box office attendance was dropping fairly rapidly from 1981 to 1985? Surely EON should have let Moore go and find someone else?
    They tried. James Brolin's screentest is on the UE DVD (it's abysmal), Luds mentioned Michael Billington, and I'm sure there were others. None of them measured up, so they kept bringing Moore back, and Moore, gent that he was, was a sport about it.

    It seems to me that hitting release dates at two-year intervals was a higher priority in those days; EON wanted to replace their lead, but couldn't find anyone suited to the job, so they kept the man they wanted to replace in order to keep making films.
    Seven films at two year intervals can't have helped, it must have been public overload for all involved. Why didn't EON try a three year gap at some point with Moore? That may really have improved things.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Moore, even in his older days, was still relitively sucessful and well liked even if the films themselves weren't as popular (they still did pretty well - especially OP in the States).
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    An extended Dalton tenure (starting in '83 or '85) would have brought the franchise at exactly the same place as now- the attendance would have continued to drop rapidly all the way until 1989 (legal issues). I rest by my case that a longer Dalton tenure would have killed the franchise. Without the legal issues, box office attendance would be dangerously low, so low EON would call have called it quits sometimes after '91 or '93 if we were lucky. If you want a longer Dalton tenure, it must have started in 1984 and 1985 and still end in 1989. Anything after 1989, and the franchise is dead.
    Actually, I strongly doubt that would have been the case, it's not a certainty that's for sure. Had Dalton started earlier, then the public would have had more time to warm up to him. If he'd stared in 1985, then his 1989 film would have been his 'relaxed performance' film. Following that, I don't see what would have stopped him (so long as his interest in the role remained) from taking Bond into the 1990's.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited August 2011 Posts: 1,778
    First of all @JobeGDG that's Dalton pic. Get your own haha.

    @DaltonCraig007 what your saying about Dalton isn't logical. That being audiences would've grown tired of him after his second outing. The reason LTK underperformed was because of all the competetion in the summer of 89. Batman, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters 2, The Abyss, Star Trek 5, and Lethal Weapon 2 were all released that summer. Plus LTK had maybe the weakest marketing campiagn in the history of the series due to the late title change. Alot of it was just due to bad circumatances. In addition to that I think audiences needed a break from Bond. 16 films in 27 years is alot don't you think? 18 if you count NASA and CR 67.

    Anyway back to the topic. I recall an interview were Moore said he never thought he'd do more than the 3 films his contract demanded and it'd be a short run. But the role suited him so well and the money was so good why would he ruin a good thing. As to why EON kept him, I think they saw it as a "If it's not broke, don't fix it" scnerio. Even his last few films were still turning in strong profits. And like @M_Balje said, he was the most loyal of all the actors. In addition to that he had no problem doing tons of publicity and promotion for the films and EON, something they had trouble with in regards to Connery and Lazenby. In many ways he was a model employee. Except for all the money he was asking for.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    It's said Cubby and Moore came to an agreement before him signing for A View To A Kill that it would be his final Bond film, something Moore wanted.

    Does know if this is true or have any other information on it?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,718
    I dare say if neither Brosnan or Dalton were available for TLD, being the first major candidates in years, Moore would have done an 8th one. It'd be tough negociations, but he'd have been Bond again.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Ah, found something but only in the - needs to be updated - production section of A View To A Kill: http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/avtak_production.php3?t=mi6&s=avtak

    Prior to From a View to a Kill, Moore again expressed his reluctance to return to the role and again Broccoli and Bond paymasters United Artists had tempted him back with a salary hike. This time, however, Moore and Broccoli came to an agreement - Moore would play Bond one last time and then he would walk away from the role.

    Whilst I'm on that topic I hope some more film banners are added in soon.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    An extended Dalton tenure (starting in '83 or '85) would have brought the franchise at exactly the same place as now- the attendance would have continued to drop rapidly all the way until 1989 (legal issues). I rest by my case that a longer Dalton tenure would have killed the franchise. Without the legal issues, box office attendance would be dangerously low, so low EON would call have called it quits sometimes after '91 or '93 if we were lucky. If you want a longer Dalton tenure, it must have started in 1984 and 1985 and still end in 1989. Anything after 1989, and the franchise is dead.
    Actually, I strongly doubt that would have been the case, it's not a certainty that's for sure. Had Dalton started earlier, then the public would have had more time to warm up to him. If he'd stared in 1985, then his 1989 film would have been his 'relaxed performance' film. Following that, I don't see what would have stopped him (so long as his interest in the role remained) from taking Bond into the 1990's.
    Agreed.
    I dare say if neither Brosnan or Dalton were available for TLD, being the first major candidates in years, Moore would have done an 8th one. It'd be tough negociations, but he'd have been Bond again.
    As fond as I am of Sir Rog, I'm very glad that did not happen.
    @DaltonCraig007 what your saying about Dalton isn't logical. That being audiences would've grown tired of him after his second outing. The reason LTK underperformed was because of all the competetion in the summer of 89. Batman, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters 2, The Abyss, Star Trek 5, and Lethal Weapon 2 were all released that summer. Plus LTK had maybe the weakest marketing campiagn in the history of the series due to the late title change. Alot of it was just due to bad circumatances. In addition to that I think audiences needed a break from Bond. 16 films in 27 years is alot don't you think? 18 if you count NASA and CR 67.
    Bond film grosses were dropping in the 1980s long before Dalton came along. TLD actually did better at the international box office than AVTAK and the "non-official" NSNA. In looking at the history of the Bond series, competition from other action movie franchises started really getting tough with the debut of "Star Wars" in 1977, followed by Superman, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, Batman, etc.

  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Not just in the USA, Luds. LTK made 39.1 million ticket sales world wide... That is 9 million less than TLD, 42 millions less than GE and 46 millions less than MR. Another Dalton film that would most likely decrease attendance, and the series is over.
    I believe LTK would have done much better if they'd bothered to give it the right hype. That said, LTK is a triumph over public stupidity and one of the best films in the series. Go figure :-D
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    It's said Cubby and Moore came to an agreement before him signing for A View To A Kill that it would be his final Bond film, something Moore wanted.

    Does know if this is true or have any other information on it?
    actually they were almost going to bring Moore back to The Living Daylights thank god Dalton stepped in
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    In all fairness Dalton and Brosnan weren't that much younger. Dalton was 2 years younger at 43 and Brosnan was 3 years younger at 42.
Sign In or Register to comment.