What if Roger Moore had done OHMSS?

edited January 2013 in Actors Posts: 15,125
I often wonder about it, what it would have meant for Moore's tenure, OHMSS and the franchise. Would OHMSS have been lighter, and if so to which extend? Would the Moore era have been darker and more heavily influenced by Tracie's death? Would the public have been ready for Moore at this time?
«134

Comments

  • Posts: 1,548
    NO NO NO NO. Cant think of a much worse alternative casting suggestion. On a par with Pierce Brosnan doing Casino Royale!
  • Posts: 15,125
    I am not saying he should have done it, I am asking what would have happened had he done OHMSS.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    What if Roger Moore had done crack?

    It would have been bloody awful that's what
  • It would have been the worst mismatch of leading man to material of the entire series. I understand and accept many here like him, but he's all wrong for that film
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited January 2013 Posts: 2,722
    First instinct is to recoil in horror - but on reflection he'd have been ok. He would have been better in the Hilary Bray sequences but I don't know if he would have worked in the love scenes - moore was one of the best at 'romantic' bond but 'true love' bond? Not sure. Not that Lazenby was amazing in those scenes but he has a vulnerability that works. However I think Moore could have been effective in the blofeld scenes and the final scene. But one of the places Moore would have definitely been worse is the action scenes - especially the fight scenes. Lazenby is very muscular and believable in these scenes - probably not until Craig has Bond been as physical. Overall, I'm glad Moore didn't do OHMSS but it wouldnt have been the worse thing in the world. The more it goes on the better I like Lazenby and if I could only change one thing in the bond timeline it would be Lazenby does DAF and it's a straight revenge story. Although QOS has its problems - they got the tone of it dead right.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 23
    I need to start by saying OHMSS is one of my top 5 Bond movies. Now to the question: I think Roger Moore would've been good at some points but very-very bad at others. Good because of his acting experience, Bond (maybe) could have looked better, specially in the closing scene ("...it's alright. We have all the time in the world.") ––And very very bad because Moore, unfortunately, looks funny every time he runs and... what's the number one rule for a Moore fist fight? Holding up the chin of the opponent with one hand.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 4,813
    Make no mistake, the hand to hand fighting definitely would have taken a few steps down--but since this movie is all about OO7 falling in love, and Roger is without a doubt the man for that sort of thing, I think the movie would have been ultimately better than George's or even Connery's version!
    I'd have loved to see it
  • It's a general trait of Bond movies to write to the strengths of the actor playing Bond by the 2nd or third movie.
    Look at TSPWLM, it's tailor made for Moore, just like LTK is a perfect match for Dalton. I don't think that the producers would have went down the tongue in cheek route they did for later Moore movies had he done OHMSS, I can't say he would have been better than Lazenby but I can surely speculate that he wouldn't have been as jokey or light hearted in it as he was in his later movies.
  • Posts: 5,745
    ALERT: Over Analysis Incoming...

    ...

    ...

    To start: Moore would have been 42, rather than 46/47 when he actually started, making him look perfect for the part. He, at this point, was keen to get out of his 'The Saint' role, meaning he would have been far more open to whatever style the film-makers were going for.

    In 1970, Moore played a serious role in The Man Who Haunted Himself, further proving he was up for more dramatic roles, fitting perfectly with the far more down-to-Earth role OHMSS was looking for.

    Also in 1969, Moore was trying to get out of a 'terrible' relationship with his then-wife, who eventually granted him a divorce. This would have strengthened his portrayal of Bond trying to get along with, and finally falling in love with the tough Tracy character.

    Moore's actual films reflected his fun, playboy personality because that is how the writers decided to make the Bond character, because it would make the role more natural for Moore in 1973 and on.

    Had Moore started when the writers wanted a serious portrayal of Bond in 1969, I'm sure Moore would have obliged. In fact, he did make a rather serious film in 1969, Crossplot, which involved Moore's character falling in love with a troubled woman, who eventually leads him to discover an organization out to destabilize the world order. Sound familiar?

    As someone who is only a casual fan of a few of Moore's Bond films, I would love to see him play the role of Bond in 1969, because he seemed to fit really well.

    Did I change anyone's mind?
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 136
    Nah. Maybe it would be good, but I'm glad we got Lazenby. The only other actor that I think could have pulled the film off as well would be Dalton.http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/382078_2493033181053_1669399490_n.jpg

    Mod edit: direct link to copyrighted image removed.
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 23
    MaxRebo120 wrote:
    Nah. Maybe it would be good, but I'm glad we got Lazenby. The only other actor that I think could have pulled the film off as well would be Dalton.http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/382078_2493033181053_1669399490_n.jpg

    One thing I must say... it already looks like Tracy can kick Bond's a**

    Mod edit: direct link to copyrighted image removed.
  • Say, that's some fine photoshop.... :-w

    ;)
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 147
    OMG No!
    Just thinking of this hurts my head. Happy with the way it is.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Rog could have handled it fine, he has done tougher and more dramatic parts outside of Bond so why not, but I'm sure all the Bond actors could have played things differently to how they did at the time, it's just a timing thing.
  • Posts: 15,125
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    ALERT: Over Analysis Incoming...

    ...

    ...

    To start: Moore would have been 42, rather than 46/47 when he actually started, making him look perfect for the part. He, at this point, was keen to get out of his 'The Saint' role, meaning he would have been far more open to whatever style the film-makers were going for.

    In 1970, Moore played a serious role in The Man Who Haunted Himself, further proving he was up for more dramatic roles, fitting perfectly with the far more down-to-Earth role OHMSS was looking for.

    Also in 1969, Moore was trying to get out of a 'terrible' relationship with his then-wife, who eventually granted him a divorce. This would have strengthened his portrayal of Bond trying to get along with, and finally falling in love with the tough Tracy character.

    Moore's actual films reflected his fun, playboy personality because that is how the writers decided to make the Bond character, because it would make the role more natural for Moore in 1973 and on.

    Had Moore started when the writers wanted a serious portrayal of Bond in 1969, I'm sure Moore would have obliged. In fact, he did make a rather serious film in 1969, Crossplot, which involved Moore's character falling in love with a troubled woman, who eventually leads him to discover an organization out to destabilize the world order. Sound familiar?

    As someone who is only a casual fan of a few of Moore's Bond films, I would love to see him play the role of Bond in 1969, because he seemed to fit really well.

    Did I change anyone's mind?

    This is a really interesting analysis, and makes me reconsider Moore's tenure. Bond as perceived/written in the 70s influenced his tenure as much as he influenced it. And OHMSS may have change the whole tone of the Moore's Bond. However, I would say like many here that the fights would have been weaker (although Moore being younger, it might have helped).

    Oh and on a side note I think Moore played very well the widower Bond in the few scenes when he remembers Tracy.
  • George did a good enough job of it in '69 and in hindsight I wouldn't swap him with anyone. Moore came in at the right time four years later and his debut performance was a great success, so it's best to just leave things as they are
  • Posts: 15,125
    George did a good enough job of it in '69 and in hindsight I wouldn't swap him with anyone. Moore came in at the right time four years later and his debut performance was a great success, so it's best to just leave things as they are
    It is not about re-making history, it is a speculative post.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Moore might have pulled certain scenes off very well, as he did have the acting skills obviously. Had he at least been allowed to play things Roger Moore rather than Sean Connery 2.0, I can see him work especially fine amongst the Piz Gloria ladies and possibly opposite Tracy. I say possibly because there's a certain vulnerability and complex charm Lazenby oozes which is quite simply perfect for the scenes with Tracy. Not sure if Roger's easy going manners would have worked that magic all that well to be fair.

    Furthermore, the OHMSS Bond has some pretty tough decisions to make, hurled between duty and love, self-awareness and pride. With Lazenby missing a few acting notes here and there, a certain kind of insecurity on his part can be felt and that only makes the performance, even by accident, stronger. Moore was always very conscious of himself as Bond. I'm not sure if the performance, while no doubt entertaining, would have convinced me with this script. Even the humour in this film, Moore's alleged trademark as Bond, had some complexity to it.

    And of course there's the action. Lazenby had the physicality for sure - he was indeed a brawler. You can sense his anger, the power behind his fists. Moore's action was hardly ever beyond some 'pro forma' moves. Nothing wrong with that by the way - I love Moore's Bond - but I'm not too confident about him carrying the OHMSS script. YOLT, perhaps. Maybe even GF. But not OHMSS.
  • Posts: 15,125
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Moore might have pulled certain scenes off very well, as he did have the acting skills obviously. Had he at least been allowed to play things Roger Moore rather than Sean Connery 2.0, I can see him work especially fine amongst the Piz Gloria ladies and possibly opposite Tracy. I say possibly because there's a certain vulnerability and complex charm Lazenby oozes which is quite simply perfect for the scenes with Tracy. Not sure if Roger's easy going manners would have worked that magic all that well to be fair.

    Furthermore, the OHMSS Bond has some pretty tough decisions to make, hurled between duty and love, self-awareness and pride. With Lazenby missing a few acting notes here and there, a certain kind of insecurity on his part can be felt and that only makes the performance, even by accident, stronger. Moore was always very conscious of himself as Bond. I'm not sure if the performance, while no doubt entertaining, would have convinced me with this script. Even the humour in this film, Moore's alleged trademark as Bond, had some complexity to it.

    And of course there's the action. Lazenby had the physicality for sure - he was indeed a brawler. You can sense his anger, the power behind his fists. Moore's action was hardly ever beyond some 'pro forma' moves. Nothing wrong with that by the way - I love Moore's Bond - but I'm not too confident about him carrying the OHMSS script. YOLT, perhaps. Maybe even GF. But not OHMSS.

    I wonder if Moore would have played Bond in OHMSS the way we expected him to play Bond. JWESTBROOK really challenged perceptions I had about Moore as an actor. I also wonder how him playing in the more dramatic, darker Bond movie that was OHMSS would have influenced his tenure.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    I think of Roger Moore as a good and entertaining actor but not as a very versatile one. Every time he's asked to play things dark, he has trouble doing so which he himself has admitted by the way. Ergo, I can't help thinking there's always a right film for the talents of Moore, but there's not always a right Moore for every Bond film.
  • Posts: 90
    Although I deplore most of Roger Moores Bond efforts I have to agree that he gives a surprisingly good performance as a man with inner turmoil in 'The Man Who Haunted Himself'.( my favourite Moore film) So he might have surprised us in the emotional scenes.As for action scenes - these might fall short - as well as running Roger also looks funny(and phoney) on skis.I wonder how he would have paired with Diana Rigg - she and Patrick Macnee had some very snappy banter in the Avengers. In the end though George Lazenby was perfect for the part and the film works well as it is (Pity he only did the one film).
  • Tracy would not have died as it would ruin the camp which the Moore movies had. Bond would've made some cheesy comment when he sees the girls in Blowfields hideout.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    I think he could have done it. It would have depended on direction and how he was directed to play the role. . There are moments, over his time as Bond, where Moore showed that he could be a serious as any of the other actors. One has to remember that he would have been a blank slate at that point and not the over the top characature of a spy that he became. I have no doubt that he could have done it.
  • I have great affection for both OHMSS and the wonderful Sir Rog however each have their separate strengths which would have otherwise been somewhat diminished if the two had crossed paths.
  • Posts: 15,125
    Batman23 wrote:
    Tracy would not have died as it would ruin the camp which the Moore movies had. Bond would've made some cheesy comment when he sees the girls in Blowfields hideout.

    What makes you think she would not have died?
  • Posts: 15,125
    talos7 wrote:
    I think he could have done it. It would have depended on direction and how he was directed to play the role. . There are moments, over his time as Bond, where Moore showed that he could be a serious as any of the other actors. One has to remember that he would have been a blank slate at that point and not the over the top characature of a spy that he became. I have no doubt that he could have done it.

    Yes. And let's forget that when Moore became Bond, it was after DAF, which took the opposite approach to OHMSS. Moore's take was influenced by it.
  • AgentCalibosAgentCalibos Banned
    Posts: 46
  • Posts: 1,999
    Read the article on Moore's approach to Bond, look at the stills, and then take a look how stiff he is in the gun barrel sequence. He played the role of Bond, but he never inhabited the role. He was never believable as Bond; he was only believable as an actor playing Bond.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 11,189
    What if Roger Moore had done OHMSS?

    He'd be re-acting his days at drama school in which he made his way through all the female students ;)

    I remember reading an interview with Peter Hunt in which Hunt claimed that Moore's version of Bond was not to his taste - despite praising Moore himself very strongly.
  • Posts: 2,402
    What if Roger Moore had done OHMSS?

    It would've been terrible. /thread
Sign In or Register to comment.