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
I think there's some truth to that as far as public perception. George definitely took the brunt of the shock and outcry when Sean left the first time and by the time Moore took over the public had come to grips with it. Sir Rog also was a known commodity to most people between his Hollywood studio contract player days as well as both the Saint and Persuaders series, so after Sean's DAF one-off (little did we know what a "ponce" he really was when it came to meaning "never again") most people liked the idea. It's funny how the Sean/George/Roger deal would later come full circle with Moore/Dalton/ Brosnan, Moore replaced with the unloved Tim, and Brozzer the popular heir apparent. Which makes what Craig has done all the more remarkable.
Anybody coming right after Connery would have faced criticism, if not hostility. Regardless of the intrinsic value of OHMSS with Roger Moore, it may have been his undoing. Yes, he was the right age, but had OHMSS been said as serious and dark as it became, people might have said Moore was out of his depths, and too different from his TV persona. DAF paved the way, for better or worse, to his Bond. And so did Lazenby.
Moore is a fine actor and would have had the acting chops for some great scenes in OHMSS and I would have enjoyed the film more with him in it instead of Lazenby, definitely. However, I agree with the above posters pretty much. This film is such a downer, with Tracy dying after we spend more than 2 hours getting to really know and love her character, and with it being the first "replacement" Bond after Connery - I think it would have hurt Moore.
No, the only actor who should have played it is Connery. Who, in my opinion, basically burnt out and then wimped out. Poor George had this story for his first Bond film and it was such a negative. Connery could have pulled it off exactly right truly because of his entire tenure leading up to this story. It is a shame that did not happen. Connery's history and weight (and acting chops) could have made this an outstanding film, even with its inherent flaws.
On the other hand, I do agree with you about Casino Royale. I doubt an experienced Bond would have been able to have the wool pulled over his eyes the way Craig's rookie Bond did. Not a criticism of Craig, it worked brilliantly within the movie, but Brosnan's Bond, who is explicitly a veteran, would have been less convincing there.
No. Connery was already past it by You Only Live Twice, and he as much had had enough of the series by then and decided to pull out during production, so his heart wouldn't have been in it. Moore if not for his Saint appearances, could of started out in 1967 but say again, I feel then would of been a little premature for a debut. Live and Let Die was the right time for his entrance, but he should of quit after For Your Eyes Only
We know Dalton turned down the opportunity in 1969 to be Bond, and being in his early 20s, he made the right decision. We say it every time, but On Her Majestys Secret Service belongs to Lazenby, and retrospectively I wouldn't have anyone else in the part
I know a lot of peole probably wouldn't agree with me on this but with Lazenby in the role the Tracy angle just dosen't fill like it carries much weight, Like you haven't had any time to build up any kind of connection with this particular Bond, with Connery's history in the role I feel it would have been a lot more heartbreaking.
With the Moore issue in 1969 I have heard him mention Cambodia many times so I wonder if they were going to film a different novel?
The same thought has occurred to me.
While I find this discussion fascinating, I ultimately consider it a moot point. James Bond's 1969 adventure would have been a completely different film had it starred either Sean Connery or Roger Moore, whether or not it was titled On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
I think he was capable to channel such performance. He is a much better actor than he is often credited for. But would the audiences have accepted him playing such darker Bond and a movie with a tragic ending with Moore in it? That is another question. I think he played very well the widower in the times when Tracy was mentioned in his tenure.
Indeed he would have been - just look at his performance as Henry Pelham in the psychological drama film The Man Who Haunted Himself, released just a year after OHMSS in 1969. To him playing a darker Bond, I would say that the audience would accept this if they had not by 1969 saw his camper version of Bond and OHMSS was to be his first performance as Bond. There is the fact that Moore certainly played tough and violent characters in some of his non-Bond films too, of course. All of this has the health warning of being hypothetical, though.
Lazenby was really cool in that movie, and a fool in real life for botching that all up.
If you don't believe me, watch the two films Moore made with the director of OHMSS, Peter Hunt. Those movies are Shout at the Devil and Gold. Moore gives fine, restrained, and non-campy performances in both.
Had Hunt made OHMSS with Moore, he would have pulled a similar performance from Moore. True, Lazenby was the better fighter, but much of the effectiveness of the fight scenes in OHMSS was derived from the editing and Hunt's direction, so Moore would have been fine (his fight scenes in Shout at the Devil are convincing).
The producers gave Hunt a considerable amount of control over OHMSS--he would given the film the same tone regardless of who was playing Bond. Moore's emotional range was no worse than Lazenby's, and unlike Lazenby, he was already well-known and well-liked by the public, and would have been greeted more positively. It might have been a better start to his tenure than LALD and could have prevented the Bond films from growing as campy as they became.
Fascinating. So in this scenario, Rog would have started in 1969 and stuck it out for the full 7. That means he would have quit after FYEO.
Meanwhile, Connery's messy post-DAF break with Broccoli would not have occurred, making it less likely that Sean would have teamed up with McClory for NSNA. In which case, Cubby would not have felt compelled to try to bring Rog back for OP, and may even have been eager to move on.
Thus, Roger Moore starting with OHMSS (or TMWTGG) in '69 would have set in motion an alternate chain of events that may have resulted in the casting of James Brolin as Bond in 1982. I wonder how long Brolin would have lasted.
It could have gone either way really. It may have shortened his acting career and he would have been remembered as The Saint and the actor who aimed too high trying to play a serious Bond, completely out of his depths in that failure of the franchise that was OHMSS... Or we would have had a Bond series in the 70s much darker with an actor who would have saved it in a very different way than he did.
He'd have lit up a cigar and waited, cool as fcuk. That was Rog.