›

Roger Moore Should Never Have Been Bond!

GrantGrant
edited March 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 140
Because it meant there would never be a second series of The Persuaders!

I have been on a Persuaders binge. I have watched all 24 episodes. I far prefer Sinclair to Moore's Bond.

Oh well!
«134

Comments

  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited March 2011 Posts: 4,813
    Quoting Grant: Roger Moore Should Never Have Been Bond!


    image

    'How dare YOU, sir...." ;-)
  • TracyTracy
    Posts: 1,708
    Youre allowed to hate Moore , nobody is forcing you to like him yknow....lol
  • GrantGrant
    Posts: 140
    Ah Tracy but I love Moore!
    I just love Moore's Sinclair far MOORE than his Bond.

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Well, I'm very glad Moore got the chance to be Bond, as much as I like The Persuaders!. Thinking the other way shouldn't mean you don't want Moore to have been Bond, just that you want more of The Persuaders!, right?
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    i dont have bad opinion for Moore as Bond but i dont have some good opinion too.
  • GrantGrant
    Posts: 140
    Exactly Samuel. Wanting the best of both worlds is a personal failing!
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    I'm with you Grant. I prefer Moore both as The Saint as well as Sinclair than I do as Bond.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    It´s all Lazenby´s fault. He shouldn´t have quit.
    That would be the only reason I would forgo the amazingness of Moore´s Bond: If Lazenby had done four more Bond films, and then Dalton four or five or six...
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Quoting Grant: I far prefer Sinclair to Moore's Bond.
    The series desperately needed a savior to carry the torch after Connery left. EON wasn't willing to keep Lazenby on board due to his perceived failure at the box office, even though OHMSS did very well, and so a "star" had to be case as Bond. Moore is heavily criticized by some but honestly, I think that a performance reminiscent of Connery's Bond would have lead to eventual failure. By changing Bond, Moore and the producers saved Bond.

    So I'm really not unhappy with the decision, even though it would have been nice to see Moore Sinclair ;)
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    "EON wasn't willing to keep Lazenby on board"

    What do you mean EON wasn't willing to keep Laz on Board?????? Laz quit, EON did not fire him. They even sent Laz a retainer check for DAF and he sent it back!
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited March 2011 Posts: 1,986
    Quoting jaguar007: What do you mean EON wasn't willing to keep Laz on Board?????? Laz quit, EON did not fire him. They even sent Laz a retainer check for DAF and he sent it back!
    If the really wanted him back he would have... I'm no hater, I like Lazenby's performance, but it's clear they weren't keen on keeping him. Having Lazenby quit was quite convenient for them.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Is now a good time to repost the "why Lazenby only did one film" story? ;-)
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    No point Sam, stories have to sides...
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    Quoting Luds: If the really wanted him back he would have... I'm no hater, I like Lazenby's performance, but it's clear they weren't keen on keeping him. Having Lazenby quit was quite convenient for them.
    You are drawing your own conclusions despite documented facts. Lazenby was presented with a 7 film contract that he refused to sign. EON sent him a retainer check for DAF, he returned it. EON had every intention on Lazenby continuing in the role Lazenby nor EON has ever disputed that. EON may had gone after him a bit more aggressively by offering him more money, but he was not that kind about EON to the press at the time OHMSS was released. However, had Lazenby wanted to do a second Bond film, he would have done a second Bond film.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Quoting Luds:
    No point Sam, stories have to sides...
    It's very comprehensive in the points it makes though. That's what I was getting at.

    From what I understand Saltzman wanted Lazenby back, Cubby really didn't. Lazenby is to blame mind, he should have stood on his own two feet and continued with the series, even if he thought he'd go down with the ship.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited March 2011 Posts: 1,986
    I'm very much aware of everything you wrote @jaguar007. But the fact remains, they let him go. They choose not to pursue seriously. Now had he returned, I'm sure he could have done DAF, but again, a second perceived financial failure likely would have led to his termination. EON were gambling with Lazenby and decided to bank on a star. And unfortunately we'll never know how great Lazenby would have been during a long tenure.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    That's the big question, I find. Would a second Lazenby film have done even worse or by that time would've the public been a bit more used to what they'd just seen? A revenge story might have really worked. If that was of course what early 70's filmgoers were into.

    You're right though @Luds, of course Bond needed Moore and I'm sure we're all very thankful he came along when he did.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    There's much more discussion and opinions to share about this, but I don't want to keep steering off topic here. I'm wondering if people do believe that Moore did in fact save the series?
  • MI6MI6 Administrator
    Posts: 677
    I've moved this from the "news" section to "Bond Movies"
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Quoting Luds: I'm wondering if people do believe that Moore did in fact save the
    series?
    I think anyone would've worked and been able to save the Bond series because by that time, the public had three actors in as many films and knew when Connery came back it would be for only one. By '73 they may have wondered who was next and Moore seemed to fit the bill. I'd like to think whoever it was would've been welcomed with open arms.
  • jaguar007jaguar007
    Posts: 638
    Quoting Luds: I'm wondering if people do believe that Moore did in fact save the series?
    I'm not sure he "saved" the series, as all previous films have been very successful, but he certainly did keep the series alive.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited March 2011 Posts: 1,986
    Quoting jaguar007: I'm not sure he "saved" the series, as all previous films have been very successful, but he certainly did keep the series alive.
    Certainly rejuvenated it in a way then as saving may be too strong a word. It sure didn't please everyone, but he did manage to bring in legions of new fans.
  • MoonrakerMoonraker
    Posts: 60
    He "saved" the series in the sense that he proved that someone else besides Sean Connery could establish themselves as Bond. That opened the door for all the Bond actors who followed.

    Moore has had a blessed career. Who else can say they played Ivanhoe, Maverick, Simon Templar, Brett Sinclair, Sherlock Holmes, and James Bond?!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Quoting Luds: It sure didn't please everyone, but he did manage to being in legions of new
    fans.
    To such an extent I think it'd be hard to same the same about Brosnan or Craig. Or is it too early to judge Craig?

    I do think, or rather hope, Bond 23 could do for the series what The Spy Who Loved Me did. Reaffirm Craig is Bond to the public and bring in new fans in the process. The gap of these films from the previous ones will help a great deal.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    It's early but Craig has shown very successful so far, imo. And @Moonraker, I think that you've got is spot on about this. Moore certainly proved that Bond could be established as someone other than Connery, this is exactly what I was trying to get at without finding the proper words!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited March 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Quoting Samuel001: To such an extent I think it'd be hard to same the same about Brosnan or Craig.
    Or is it too early to judge Craig?
    I think Brosnan, like Moore, certainly brought in a lot of younger fans (I should know, I'm one of them) but part of that was probably due to the lengthy gap of 89-95.

    Also, both Brosnan and Moore were popular with the public BEFORE they played Bond, unlike Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Craig.


  • St_GeorgeSt_George Shuttling Drax's lovelies to the space doughnut - happy 40th, MR!
    edited March 2011 Posts: 1,699
    The Persuaders! is outstanding entertainment and I love each and every one of its episodes, but the idea of Sir Rog never being Bond? Well, I'm not sure I could even countenance that notion... ;)


    image
    "Say, Rog, what if Broccoli and Saltzman came to you at the end of this series and offered you the Bond gig - meaning you couldn't do any more Persuaders? What would you do?"
    "Hmmm, well, you know I love you Tony and everything, but..."
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    About the Laz thing, haven't you guys read the thing about his manager screwing him? He wanted to sign but the manager idiot had him sign a contract before Bond and they had to approve and Laz couldn't sign with Bond and blah, blah. He wanted to come back but couldn't.

    And Moore not only saved the series but sent it on to the massive overall success it ultimately did have. We wouldn't have a Bond franchise without Moore. No doubt. We would have a series with Connery and some other guy. So even Laz's contribution would be dimmed without Moore MAKING it a series. The biggest series in movie history. Moore's run did that.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Quoting Luds: Moore is heavily criticized by some but honestly, I think that a performance reminiscent of Connery's Bond would have lead to eventual failure. By changing Bond, Moore and the producers saved Bond.
    That statement is interesting, I don´t see where Moore´s Bond is supposed to be different from Connery´s DAF Bond ;-) . In fact I never felt such a great difference between early Connery and all of Moore. I mean the performance, not the films.


    About Lazenby there are certain official stories, but isn´t it one established way in Hollywood as well as in other big companies that "unfortunaltey we had to let him go" instead of "we fired him"?
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    edited March 2011 Posts: 825
    Quoting Grant:
    Posts: 4
    Well I'm glad Roger Moore went from "The Persuaders" To Bond. Although he should had up to 5 movies instead of 7 & over do it. The Late Cubby Broccoli & Late Harry Saltman who later left the partnership were both happy with him They want him to play Bond in the first place but he would want to do the Saint role. Roger was offered 3 times to play 007. First in 1962 then when Connery was departing in 1969 he was unvaible but in 1971 he let Sean Connery do 1 more. Well I'm glad he did the 3 Character he played. The Saint, Lord Brett Sinclair opposite to late Tony Curtis & 007 in 7 Bond films. He is a great actor & great man so I'm. Some of yous can't say anything what I wrote. Believe or not I got all of his collections of those characters. X( :-@
Sign In or Register to comment.