›

Roger Moore...in Diamonds are Forever or The Living Daylights?

1246

Comments

  • EiragornEiragorn Hessia
    Posts: 108
    I just read Moore was aimed for DN... I would have loved to see him in DAF as it is a goofier movie than both LALD and MWTGG. Then Bond to FYEO to end on a high note. So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)

    But that would mean we would have gotten TD for Octopussy and to the legal problems in the 90s. So Dalton would have gotten 3 bad movies out of 4. He would have surpassed Brosnan and Moore in quality ratio. Was suprised Dalton was already in talks for OHMSS 8-)
  • 0iker00iker0
    Posts: 501
    DAF no, Lazenby should have done it.
    TLD no, way too old.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited October 2012 Posts: 12,837
    The problem with Dalton in Octopussy is that OP was up against NSNA, starring Sean Connery. If Dalton had been in OP, as much as I love him, he wouldn't have beaten Connery at the box office.

    Besides, Moore was on top form in OP, I wouldn't take that away from him. Dalton should've started with AVTAK and carried on into the 90s, Brosnan taking over in 1995.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited October 2012 Posts: 401
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited October 2012 Posts: 401
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.
    I'll put it like this; when I'm thinking about YOLT, it seems like a really cool Bond film, but when I'm actually watching it, It's pretty bad. It's not as thrilling as it seems, nor is it as "cool", unless Sean Connery becoming Japanese is the epitome of cool to you. Although, the score is extremely good, probably the best part of the whole movie, and Ken Adam's sets are very good as well, but that's about it. YOLT is better than some other Bond films in the series, but the Bond films that came out before YOLT blow it right out of the water.
  • BritishChap007BritishChap007
    Posts: 555
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.
    I'll put it like this; when I'm thinking about YOLT, it seems like a really cool Bond film, but when I'm actually watching it, It's pretty bad. It's not as thrilling as it seems, nor is it as "cool", unless Sean Connery becoming Japanese is the epitome of cool to you. Although, the score is extremely good, probably the best part of the whole movie, and Ken Adam's sets are very good as well, but that's about it. YOLT is better than some other Bond films in the series, but the Bond films that came out before YOLT blow it right out of the water.

    Completely agree. There is just something about YOLT that is completely grating. Almost moreso than any other entry in the series. While I find the scenes of Sean sneaking around offices early in the film to be really cool, classic Bond, the rest of the picture just doesn't hold up.

  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Nah, Connery grounds DAF enough by his presence. Moore would make it too silly.

    As far as TLD, Moore was already 1 or 2 films overdue for retirement. I like Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only, but the series would not be worse off without his presence in either of those films. In fact, I imagine if Dalton was in FYEO, it would have been one of the best films of the series - there wouldn't be any of that out of place Bibi, hockey player, talking parrot nonsense, just a straight up down to Earth spy thriller. While we're at it, let's bring in John Barry and bring back Peter Hunt to direct...my gosh the possibility of it all!
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited October 2012 Posts: 401
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Nah, Connery grounds DAF enough by his presence. Moore would make it too silly.

    As far as TLD, Moore was already 1 or 2 films overdue for retirement. I like Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only, but the series would not be worse off without his presence in either of those films. In fact, I imagine if Dalton was in FYEO, it would have been one of the best films of the series - there wouldn't be any of that out of place Bibi, hockey player, talking parrot nonsense, just a straight up down to Earth spy thriller. While we're at it, let's bring in John Barry and bring back Peter Hunt to direct...my gosh the possibility of it all!
    I agree on both points, especially the first one. If Moore was in DAF, he would have tried to add more of his infamous "humor" and "goofiness" and made it just as bad as LALD, which would have probably been better if it had Connery, actually. Connery wasn't like that as Bond, so we got a good film which had a good mix of campiness and seriousness, which in turn produced a very entertaining and fun Bond film. There wasn't really anything in DAF that was cringeworthy, even Blofeld in drag wasn't that bad, compared to other moments in the series. I would also say Connery's performance in DAF was an improvement over his performance in YOLT.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.

    The whole movie is practically a snooze fest up until the volcano battle, quite honestly. Connery is lame, dull, boring, and makes no efforts to actually appear Bondish. The soundtrack is as pitiful as dump, and the Japanese locations get old in a hurry. Also, the villains are quite pathetic. Pleasance's entrance into the movie with about 20 minutes left, naturally, comes too late to improve this point. The only saving grace are the action scenes, which are well done, but they are spread far and wide, so every other scene in between is left to rot in boredom.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    lol- yeah I've decided TLD wouldn't have worked (sorry Rog)

    RogerTLD.jpg
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Moore could of easily worked for Diamonds, but ideally George should, and could of done it if not for his agent getting involved, but Moore was involved with his work in the Saint as Simon Templar in the 1960s but would of been a success in 1971, anyone other than an awful Connery appearance would of worked, but for Daylights?, not a chance, Moore should of stepped down from the part in 1981, not five years later, and having Mr Moore in The Living Daylights?, well I have trouble even thinking about it

    It never would of worked, would of been a disaster for all involved
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Neither, but If Roger looked like this in AVTAK it would have been slightly better.
    rogermoore2.jpg
  • EiragornEiragorn Hessia
    Posts: 108
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.

    I think it's iconic, original and enjoyable. It is not on par with Connery's other efforts but by far no bad film.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited October 2012 Posts: 5,767
    Eiragorn wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.

    I think it's iconic, original and enjoyable. It is not on par with Connery's other efforts but by far no bad film.
    It sometimes feels as if Connery in YOLT went a bit more serious than he did in the previous two films, almost as if he were preparing the down-to-earth style of OHMSS. But the script and editing add some strange bits, like the ´some honeymoon´ moment on the slope of the volcano. Bond hasn´t got a tenth of sharp little lines he had in TB. I don´t know if the witticisms in GF or TB were part Connery´s inventions or if they were all in the script.


    As for DAF and TLD, there´s such a smooth transition between DAF and LALD that I never understood why people say that Connery and Moore were different.
    I understand TLD was originally scripted with Sir Rog in mind. I guess the fierce Bond in the beginning and the jump from the ladder across the airfield fence weren´t in the first drafts... I´m glad Dalton did it, because I like the somehow classical vibe it has in common with films like Charade or To catch a Thief. I can´t imagine this vibe in a Moore Bond fim.
    I wonder if they had made Kara a bit older for Moore. She was quite on the young side even for Dalton, opposite Moore it would have looked like child molesting.

  • SJK91SJK91
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,310
    Murdock wrote:
    Neither, but If Roger looked like this in AVTAK it would have been slightly better.
    rogermoore2.jpg
    Funny thing about AVTAK was that in certain shots Moore looked HALF acceptable in the role:
    http://screenmusings.org/AViewToAKill/pages/AVtaK_676.htm

    ...but in other shots he looked way out of the game.
    http://screenmusings.org/AViewToAKill/pages/AVtaK_744.htm

    I suppose it's all lighting and camera angles...and MAKEUP.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Eiragorn wrote:
    So Connery would not have any particulary bad Bond movie on his resume ;-)
    Do you consider YOLT to be a good Bond film?

    I don't get the hate for YOLT. I think it's a fun Bond film with some cool locations, girls, villians and gadgets, and Connery never seemed bored to me.

    Well said! YOLT does not get the love it deserves.
  • TrueMiracle85TrueMiracle85
    Posts: 300
    I'm going to agree with @thelivingroyale's sentiment earlier in the thread. I think Roger Moore would have worked just fine in DAF, and I think it would have been a better first film for Moore to feel out his interpretation and really have a stronger head for LALD, and perhaps a little more input on the script. So then I would end Moore's tenure with Octopussy and bring Dalton on in AVTAK with heavy changes to the tone of the script.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    TrueMiracle85 wrote:
    So then I would end Moore's tenure with Octopussy and bring Dalton on in AVTAK with heavy changes to the tone of the script.
    Cool! Considering he could have stayed till around 2005, that would mean 20 years of Dalton as Bond :-)!

  • bondsumbondsum
    edited October 2012 Posts: 3,333
    Without Connery returning for DAF the franchise would have died. Yes, I know we've got a long lineage of movies to look back on and it seems inconceivable today, but back in 1970 after Lazenby quit, everyone thought it was the end of the road for Bond and the public had lost interest. No way would an audience have accepted 2 different Bonds straight after one another, despite what some of you believe. Getting Connery back for the role of 007 in 1971 was the best decision that United Artists' chief David Picker could've made and you should all be thankful, otherwise this forum would be like a retro Man From UNCLE site for older fans only.

    Besides... Moore was far too podgy and in worse shape than Connery was in 1971, which brings me to Moore appearing in TLD... far too old and out of shape!! Moore should have been replaced after MR or at the latest after FYEO.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited October 2012 Posts: 11,189
    bondsum wrote:
    Without Connery returning for DAF the franchise would have died. Yes, I know we've got a long lineage of movies to look back on and it seems inconceivable today, but back in 1970 after Lazenby quit, everyone thought it was the end of the road for Bond and the public had lost interest. No way would an audience have accepted 2 different Bonds straight after one another, despite what some of you believe. Getting Connery back for the role of 007 in 1971 was the best decision that United Artists' chief David Picker could've made and you should all be thankful, otherwise this forum would be like a retro Man From UNCLE site for older fans only.

    Besides... Moore was far too podgy and in worse shape than Connery was in 1971, which brings me to Moore appearing in TLD... far too old and out of shape!! Moore should have been replaced after MR or at the latest after FYEO.

    I thought he was very good in OP and worked well alongside Maud :(
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    BAIN123 wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    Without Connery returning for DAF the franchise would have died. Yes, I know we've got a long lineage of movies to look back on and it seems inconceivable today, but back in 1970 after Lazenby quit, everyone thought it was the end of the road for Bond and the public had lost interest. No way would an audience have accepted 2 different Bonds straight after one another, despite what some of you believe. Getting Connery back for the role of 007 in 1971 was the best decision that United Artists' chief David Picker could've made and you should all be thankful, otherwise this forum would be like a retro Man From UNCLE site for older fans only.

    Besides... Moore was far too podgy and in worse shape than Connery was in 1971, which brings me to Moore appearing in TLD... far too old and out of shape!! Moore should have been replaced after MR or at the latest after FYEO.

    I thought he was very good in OP and worked well alongside Maud :(

    Have always thought Moore suited Octopussy excellently and looked very good also. I think him and Octopussy had a maturity that lacks in other Bond/Bond girl relationships.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I agree that Moore didn't look bad in OP, guys. However I still feel Broccoli should've been bolder and found a younger and fresher Bond when making FYEO thus taking us into the 80's with a revitalized 007. As it stands, Moore was only in it for the paycheck and was always holding out for more money, which was the reason why he used to give Broccoli the runaround and refuse to commit to the next Bond venture until the last minute.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    SJK91 wrote:
    Funny thing about AVTAK was that in certain shots Moore looked HALF acceptable in the role:
    http://screenmusings.org/AViewToAKill/pages/AVtaK_676.htm

    ...but in other shots he looked way out of the game.
    http://screenmusings.org/AViewToAKill/pages/AVtaK_744.htm

    I suppose it's all lighting and camera angles...and MAKEUP.

    Eh those two didn't really look good. the scenes in AVTAK where I thought he looked fine was in the PTS, The Briefing after the Main title sequence, Most of the stuff at Zorin's Chateau. the scenes at Fisherman's Wharf, the scenes at Stacey's house and City hall and the beginning of the climax and the Golden Gate Bridge fight.

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I don't think Moore should've quit after FYEO because I love OP as it is and he's on top form. He should've left after OP and gone out on a high note.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    I don't think Moore should've quit after FYEO because I love OP as it is and he's on top form. He should've left after OP and gone out on a high note.

    Totally agree. Every time I watch Octopussy I feel Sir Rog is still on top form and for the most part it's a great movie and would have been a great one to sign off on. AVTAK is poor IMO and he looks too old for the part and his leading lady was wrong and too young. There's no way he would have been suitable for TLD. I love the man but to keep Bond believable he can't be running around saving the world knocking sixty!
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    bondsum wrote:
    I agree that Moore didn't look bad in OP, guys. However I still feel Broccoli should've been bolder and found a younger and fresher Bond when making FYEO thus taking us into the 80's with a revitalized 007. As it stands, Moore was only in it for the paycheck and was always holding out for more money, which was the reason why he used to give Broccoli the runaround and refuse to commit to the next Bond venture until the last minute.
    The world needed Moore than just 4 or 5. And without AVTAK the world wouldn´t have got such priceless gems as, ´My name´s James Saint-John Smythe. I´m English!´

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    boldfinger wrote:
    bondsum wrote:
    I agree that Moore didn't look bad in OP, guys. However I still feel Broccoli should've been bolder and found a younger and fresher Bond when making FYEO thus taking us into the 80's with a revitalized 007. As it stands, Moore was only in it for the paycheck and was always holding out for more money, which was the reason why he used to give Broccoli the runaround and refuse to commit to the next Bond venture until the last minute.
    The world needed Moore than just 4 or 5. And without AVTAK the world wouldn´t have got such priceless gems as, ´My name´s James Saint-John Smythe. I´m English!´

    What about this:

    Ooo, Commander Bond!!
    Call me James it's...five days 'till Alaska

    :D
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    edited December 2012 Posts: 546
    Sir Roger Moore in 1971's Diamonds Are Forever would have worked. (Even though George Lazenby should have return to repise his role as 007) But Sir Roger Moore in The Living Daylights would not have worked. Don't get me wrong, I loved Sir Roger Moore as James Bond, but he would have been 60 at the time. (Not taking a jab at his age)
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    "Roger Moore in The Living Daylights"

Sign In or Register to comment.