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
Feels like Eon was casting a wide net, which makes sense if they were (probably not) actually thinking of replacing Moore. Dunaway in particular feels like a Diana Rigg-type casting move. And Khambatta tracks if they made Octopussy Indian.
But chemistry is chemistry, and Maud Adams is tops of all of the Moore Bond girls in that department.
OP has one of the most fascinating development stories in the series.
What, not Bibi?
Just joking. ;-) Nah, I agree. Maud and Rog were perfect together.
Hey, same here. I was born in '82.
I was delayed until 1984 but Octopussy is still one of my favourite Bond films and has been since I first bought it on video as a youngster back in June 1996. I can still remember the excitement of seeing a Bond film that was totally new to me. A treasured memory. Happy 40th Anniversary to one of the best Bond films ever!
I know. E.T. Wrath Of Khan. The Thing. TRON. Blade Runner. Cinematic perfection!
You sat on a shelf before the money was found to release you? ;-)
As my brother and sister were born in the late 1960s I was certainly delayed but better late than never I suppose. I believe money was a determining factor. And 1984 suits me more as a prophetic year - see my avatar for more details.
Well, at least you were born the same year Freddy Krueger entered into public awareness. ;-)
You were squeezed between OP and AVTAK then. Not bad, sir.
Yes, that's quite appropriate for a serial killer, I mean law abiding citizen.
AVTAK was the first Bond film released during my lifetime. Glad I managed to be born in Sir Roger's era as he's one of my favourite Bonds.
It had a massive effect on me, the action, the adventure, the women, all moving at a fast pace, and looking so slick. It was the beginning of a journey that I continue to this day.
Other films in the series have taken the top spot for me, but OP still ranks as one of my absolute favourties.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/16cv4zi/octopussy_a_perfect_character_arc_for_bond/
I’d say a lot of that’s a bit weighty and cerebral sounding, at least for me. But nonetheless it’s true that Moore’s Bond by the end of that film comes off as very human from his experiences. He seems pretty horrified at Orlov’s plan specifically because he’ll kill many people, he seems genuinely fearful when in the clown costume, and there’s of course his relationship with Octopussy. It’s one of the reasons I like OP as much as I do - it shows a very human version of the character.
Flawed set piece though it is, you can even start to feel the desperation starting to kick in towards the end of the jungle manhunt scene: Bond having to flag down a tourist boat and get rescued in a state of exhaustion by a load of old ladies is him where his cool outer shell has gone. There's no glib Union Jack parachute or jetpack here: he's run out of options and is reduced to pleading for 'normal' people to save him, and Roger plays it that way.
It's all relative of course: he's still not really a real person, but he's closer to being one than pretty much ever before, excepting OHMSS perhaps.
It's a shame that Octopussy didn't get a novelisation like Spy and MR: it could have made a pretty good serious Bond book if written in a Fleming-like tone.
If you compare with NSNA in the same year, the character in that is pretty faithful to Connery's previous work in the role I'd say, you're getting a much more cartoonish and everything-goes-right-for-me portrayal of Bond. Roger's version actually conveys more sense of danger and even romantic love than Connery's does, which is counter intuitive to the general perception that he's the button-pressing, smirking version of 007 and Connery's is the more real. Even his disgust and revulsion at Zorin in the next film is far stronger dramatically than any reaction to the baddie that Connery ever had, and we get it here with Orlov too, you're quite right.
Surprisingly, I'd say Roger Moore is the better actor than Sean Connery- with the (very!) major caveat of 'as James Bond'.
Interesting point.
To me, Connery is still the better Bond, also acting-wise, but only when he wanted to act, which singles out DN, FRWL, GF, and TB as top Connery Bonds. The thing about Connery is that he made it seem so effortless, so natural, while he was still playing James Bond rather than being Sean Connery.
The difference with Moore is that he became a compelling Bond for me when he simply was Roger Moore, a charming, likable presence, and certainly not a brawler. I think Roger found his Bond in him, whereas Connery shaped the character, with Young, into a role that he had to play.
So for me, Sean was the better Bond actor and his Bond had a bigger "X factor" than Roger's. But Roger was a delight to behold as Bond.
True. And I think that Sean, in better times, should have been Bond in OHMSS. If he had been at the top of his game in that film, he could have shown us that depth.
Connery put a lot of himself into his Bond too. I suspect for some fans of the novels in the 60s they may have felt that Connery wasn’t playing Fleming’s character but something quite different. It’s just nowadays we look back at a sixty year franchise with him as the first Bond, his portrayal shaping a lot of the screen version of the character.
It’s a criticism and a virtue you can level at any of the actors, that much of their individual qualities cropped up in their portrayal and that some don’t see them as James Bond but the actor themselves. Or at least something different to their idea of the character. I suppose then for every criticism that Moore didn’t have that authenticity as Bond over Connery (which I can definitely understand people saying) there’ll always be fans who see Moore as ‘their Bond’.
Connery feels more real because he didn't fly like Superman. Human doesn't mean " a whining James Bond"
In better times, yes.
But still depends though, would the movie still be the same with him?
That's the thing, it's like all the stars aligned for the film at the time Lazenby was cast (Peter Hunt, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas, and etc.)
With Connery, would we still get them? I doubt it.
If we don't have Peter Hunt as a director, we could've possibly don't have a faithful adaptation of the book, if we don't have Diana Rigg, possibly the romance wouldn't worked (sure, it would show Connery's ways of vulnerability, but would it be believable? Would it be worth it? To have him cry for example over woman whom he had no chemistry with? A romance that's not believable and no one would buy? And a Bond Girl whose not believable as the woman Bond would fell and cry for?) Not all of that would've worth it.
It's like the only good aspect of that film would've been to see Connery show his emotions, but it's uncertain if the rest of the film's aspects would've worked.
I find it ironic that you bring up OHMSS in the OP thread. Originally, it was going to tie back to the mission, with Octopussy wanting to help her with her vendetta against Blofeld and Spectre. She would have been a villain. It still could be a storyline of sorts in the future. As stated above and in the novelizations thread, Octopussy would truly be an interesting choice, that could still be done today. Thanks, Kevin McClory.
Octopussy is a great showcase for this: you've got the romantic warmth he shows with Octopussy herself, and indeed Lisl, who I think you get a great sense of Bond's affection for in a very short time. Then you've also got the desperation he shows when trying to stop the bomb exploding, or indeed escaping the manhunt, which works for Bond's evading the guards in the town beneath Piz Gloria. Connery's Bond never shows this dramatic range -which isn't to say that Connery himself wasn't capable of it- he clearly was. But his characterisation of Bond generally never went that far: after Dr No he barely ever breaks a sweat. Look at him trying to escape from Fiona and her goons in the junkanoo: a similar situation to Bond's desperation in the bomb scene or the town in OHMSS, and yet there's pretty much no sense of tension: Bond himself doesn't seem that concerned.
You can say this is the sort of development which happened over time and the films got slightly more confident about showing Bond in a marginally more three dimensional way, and yet by 1983 Connery's characterisation has stuck in this nothing-phases-him state, whereas Roger's has developed slightly. Although Connery clearly was an excellent actor, his characterisation of Bond exhibited a much narrower dramatic range. So that's why I see Roger's Bond as the better fit for OHMSS.