|
Post by jamesstock007 on Aug 27, 2007 11:40:55 GMT -5
I think that Roger Moore is Tom Baker of the Bonds, he made Bond have longevity who would have thought Sean Connery could have been replaced
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 4:57:36 GMT -5
I think that Roger Moore is Tom Baker of the Bonds, he made Bond have longevity who would have thought Sean Connery could have been replaced LALD is possibly the most important film in the franchise. With Connery gone and the failure of OHMSS, the series could well have ended. Sir Rog gave Bond the platform to continue. For the first time fans of the cinematic Bond could accept that James Bond was bigger than Connery, which is no small feat.
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Aug 28, 2007 8:34:16 GMT -5
Yes, Sir Roger saved Bond. I wonder if it was easier for Roger than Lazenby becuase Lazenby's Bond was made the 60's and was therefore associated with Connery, but Roger was the definitive 70's Bond, yellow salopets and all.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 10:26:11 GMT -5
Yes, Sir Roger saved Bond. I wonder if it was easier for Roger than Lazenby becuase Lazenby's Bond was made the 60's and was therefore associated with Connery, but Roger was the definitive 70's Bond, yellow salopets and all. The decade situation, could well be the reason TD struggled too and then there was Craig.......
|
|
Alec 006
Commander
"Finish the job, James! Blow them all to hell !!"
Posts: 422
|
Post by Alec 006 on Aug 28, 2007 22:05:25 GMT -5
I think that Roger Moore is Tom Baker of the Bonds, he made Bond have longevity who would have thought Sean Connery could have been replaced LALD is possibly the most important film in the franchise. With Connery gone and the failure of OHMSS, the series could well have ended. Sir Rog gave Bond the platform to continue. For the first time fans of the cinematic Bond could accept that James Bond was bigger than Connery, which is no small feat. Hello, I have to stongly agree with Jamestockand Harry Palmer. Skywalker is also dead-on that "Live and Let Die" was a turning point in Bond film history. Had the wrong actor been cast after luring Connery back for "Diamonds Are Forever"....the results would have been disastrous. Connery owned the part and bringing him back for what the producers knew was a "one-shot-deal", a salary of $1 million dollars (a very high price for the time), only showed that EON was a bit frantic. The then failure of the Lazenby experiment still lingered, I'm sure. I can only imagine audiences' reactions to Roger Moore's performance in the pre-credits sequence of LALD...the infamous 5:48 a.m. wake-up visit from "M". He had immediate, wonderful chemistry with the late Bernard Lee and also the lovely Lois Maxwell. We also saw Moore's very clever "quips" could equal or even better Connery. (Loud knocking at the door) Bond (to the woman in his bedroom): "You're not married, are you?" Finally...Sir Rog using his watch from "Q" branch to unzip his beautiful lover's dress: "Sheer magnetism, daring." I have visions of Cubby and Harry at the back of the theatre both breathing huge sighs of relief. It was then and there that Moore made audiences accept that another actor could comfortably fill 007's shoes. A total of seven films, tons of money at the box office, and new life for Bond, post-Connery! I back up Skywalker's view and may I add, I truly believe Roger Moore saved the beloved Bond franchise. Take Care!
|
|
|
Post by Bourne on Sept 5, 2007 9:29:42 GMT -5
I think that Roger Moore is Tom Baker of the Bonds, he made Bond have longevity who would have thought Sean Connery could have been replaced LALD is possibly the most important film in the franchise. With Connery gone and the failure of OHMSS, the series could well have ended. Sir Rog gave Bond the platform to continue. For the first time fans of the cinematic Bond could accept that James Bond was bigger than Connery, which is no small feat. Yes. Sometimes I think people in the future will think of Bond as Connery/Moore and then the rest, however good anyone else is. Also, I don't believe any actor will make seven films again.
|
|
|
Post by 009 on Sept 8, 2007 6:47:44 GMT -5
LALD is possibly the most important film in the franchise. With Connery gone and the failure of OHMSS, the series could well have ended. Sir Rog gave Bond the platform to continue. For the first time fans of the cinematic Bond could accept that James Bond was bigger than Connery, which is no small feat. Yes. Sometimes I think people in the future will think of Bond as Connery/Moore and then the rest, however good anyone else is. Also, I don't believe any actor will make seven films again. I think Brosnan had a chance to be as highly regarded as Moore and Connery because he was the modern Bond. But his treatment and production of his movies may count against that.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Sept 8, 2007 17:41:58 GMT -5
I think Brosnan had a chance to be as highly regarded as Moore and Connery because he was the modern Bond. I think Brosnan will continue to be associated with the role, despite his early departure. Goldeneye will end up being his saving grace, as it routinely lands among the Top Ten whenever the films are ranked. It had all the classic Bond elements, and also yielded the only memorable (non-Fleming) villains of the post-Moore era. It's not necessarily my favorite Brosnan, but I do feel it will essentially become to his era what TSWLM was to Moore's. By comparison, Dalton may have a loyal following among fans, but his films have been largely forgotten by the public at large.
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Sept 9, 2007 6:20:48 GMT -5
The general public seem to ignore Lazenby and Dalton. But the three films they made seem to be the most popular with those who like Bond.
|
|
|
Post by 009 on Oct 5, 2007 12:01:11 GMT -5
I think Brosnan had a chance to be as highly regarded as Moore and Connery because he was the modern Bond. I think Brosnan will continue to be associated with the role, despite his early departure. Goldeneye will end up being his saving grace, as it routinely lands among the Top Ten whenever the films are ranked. It had all the classic Bond elements, and also yielded the only memorable (non-Fleming) villains of the post-Moore era. It's not necessarily my favorite Brosnan, but I do feel it will essentially become to his era what TSWLM was to Moore's. By comparison, Dalton may have a loyal following among fans, but his films have been largely forgotten by the public at large. GoldenEye is special, as it was a relaunch of Bond. I thought it may be dead. It's a shame that The Living Daylights has been forgotten. It's a wonderful cold war adventure.
|
|
|
Post by James on Oct 8, 2007 5:31:12 GMT -5
Someone must have liked Roger. They invited him back for seven films!
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Oct 8, 2007 15:51:22 GMT -5
Someone must have liked Roger. They invited him back for seven films! He could potentially have made 15.
|
|
|
Post by adam on Oct 10, 2007 18:11:11 GMT -5
It was definatly time for a change in 73. Connery had been around for a decade and had lost interest & was out of shape. Not to mention bald and hateing the media attention. Moore was a well know and popular actor which was perhaps what the public wanted. The unknown Lazenby had previously flopped. The public had got used to Bond and maybe wanted someone they knew playing such an iconic person. Moore was 45 but looked younger, he embraced the media and physical aspects of playing Bond. He looked good and handled the role with aplomb and humour. But seven films was too much and he should have retired after O. But try telling Cubby Brocoli that after NSNA had been beaten at the box office.
|
|
|
Post by persuader007 on Dec 9, 2007 4:14:10 GMT -5
Why does Sir Roger Moore get such a hard time from everyone. When you read an article on an aspect of Bond - from the novels to the latest Bond film - there always seems to be a snipe at Sir Roger. His films were "cheesy with talking birds". He was an "old wimp". He was nothing like the serious Fleming Bond. This really annoys me. Sean's stint and his Bond were just as daft. Sir Roger created a diverse series of Bond adventures that defined Bond for many people - even if they don't realise it! Along with Cubby Broccoli, he developed the Bond series into a cultural icon. There's a "problem" with Sir Roger. He's charming and Fleming's 007 is a certified murderer, cynical and brutal but a sofisticated one. And when Roger say "I will kill you !"...we can't take it seriously. But in 70's to middle of the 80's espionnage wasn't a serious question like today. My first 007 was Octopussy. For 10 years, for me Bond was Roger Moore. We love him for his charm and because he had the most beautiful girls in his arms. His films except 2 for myself was good...Almost perfect for TSPWLM.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Dec 9, 2007 13:51:51 GMT -5
But in 70's to middle of the 80's espionnage wasn't a serious question like today. Sure it was. You had terrorists hijacking planes, the Olympics, taking hostages, etc. Watergate and Vietnam led to a huge amount of mistrust toward governments. The Cold War led to a great deal of xenophobia. Hollywood steadily released serious films about espionage, terrorism, and government conspiracies. And through it all, James Bond continued to provide audiences with escapism. It's no coincidence that the over-the-top Bond films were so successful during this time period. It's the same reason that the first outlandish Bond film after 9/11 became one of the highest grossing. Hollywood was scared to release anything too frivolous immediately afterwards, and yet that's exactly what audiences wanted at the time. Bond has always been more about fantasy than fact, with Fleming's espionage being a lot more stylized than the works of John Le Carre, Len Deighton, or even Don Hamilton. The problem is, EON made Bond so slick, that it suddenly made Fleming's version appear very grounded in reality. So we end up bouncing from one extreme to the other, when the true version is actually somewhere closer to the middle. This has also led to the current misconception that Bond should be a crazed killer. Jason Bourne is an assassin. Matt Helm is an assassin. These are men who are shown a photo by their superior and told, "Go kill that." But James Bond is a spy who is licenced to kill if necessary. There's a huge difference. Bourne isn't going to waste time playing baccarat with his target. And Helm sure as hell wouldn't take time out to golf with his 'touch'. Fleming's Bond didn't even like to kill in cold blood. When he did receive a rare assassination job in The Living Daylights, he couldn't go through with it. By comparison, Matt Helm executed people who were unarmed, unconscious, innocent, tied-up helplessly, fellow agents, lovers, and generally anyone else the job required. And he was so cold-blooded about it, he frequently had trouble finding allies who weren't repulsed by him. Judging by the current status quo, what many Bond fans really want to see onscreen is probably closer to Hamilton than anything Fleming ever intended.
|
|