Lazenby over Moore?

Q and M

I wasnt around in 1969 so i must ask the question. why was lazenby picked for ohmss over moore. he wasnt an actor, not british, moore had just finished the saint, so why wasnt he picked after connerys first retirement! there would have been less people bickering about moores age had he started his stint here. many would have also preferred a young dalton.
finally lazenby was handed a 7film contract. if connery had not returned, would it be conceivable to think that lazenby would have remained and moore would never have got his stint as bond?

Hardyboy

You're wrong about Moore's availability; according to his own autobiography, after YOLT Broccoli and Saltzman tried to make the next film in Cambodia and they were interested in Moore. However, when Cambodia fell apart, "the plans were swiftly shelved. I continued making The Saint meanwhile, and was unavailable when they re-grouped and decided the next film would be On Her Majesty's Secret Service. George Lazenby was cast, and that was that; James Bond left my life" (p. 172, US edition).

As for why they cast Lazenby, it was clearly an attempt to make lightning strike twice: take an unknown actor, groom him to be Bond, and audiences will accept him. And we know how that turned out.

Loeffelholz

One can only wonder what a Roger Moore OHMSS might have looked like! Tough to imagine...obviously he had the chops to do a straight Bond story. Might have changed the course of Bond history---or at least forestalled the lapse into Dinner Theatre comedy

Ricardo C.

Roger Moore would have done a better job I think. He has done well with straight material outside of the Bond franchise.

Loeffelholz

Quite right. I think The Wild Geese is his best work.

7289

IMO Roger Moore's lack of confidence destoryed his turn as Bond. He has the ability to "act" a part and could have "hardened" his run as Bond. But I don't think he ever could ditch the "spectre" of Sean Connery (success) or George Lazenby (failure). Since he feared not being up to the part he "sabotaged" it by going for the jokes. Every time he rolled and crossed his eyes he seemed to be saying "What am I doing here". EON was always more interested in topping the last film and raking in more and more money - so what did Cubby and Harry care if Moore made Bond a clown - it sold and sold well!

Prehaps if Moore had been tapped earlier, he would have tried harder. But it was never to be. At least he finally got to play his version of Blofeld in "The Spice Girls".

mrbain007

7289 wrote:

IMO Roger Moore's lack of confidence destoryed his turn as Bond. .

I never thought RM lacked confidence. If anything he was a little TOO confident.

007

Loeffelholz wrote:

Quite right. I think The Wild Geese is his best work.

Surely his best work is The Cannonball Run?

Blackleiter

Moore was all wrong for Bond from the beginning. I'd take Lazenby any time.

mrbain007

Blackleiter wrote:

Moore was all wrong for Bond from the beginning. I'd take Lazenby any time.

I certainly don't think he was "all wrong from the beginning". If you see him in The Saint, he is certainly the Bond "type" (as was Lazenby) in that he was "suarve and sophisticated" in an old fashioned way (much like David Niven - Fleming's choice for Bond).

mrbain007

In the past I've had difficulty imagining Moore in scenes like the final of OHMSS. However after remembering SOME scenes in his films (the scene when he tells Anya he killed her lover in TSWLM for one) I'm sure he would have been at least capable of pulling it off.

thesecretagent

007 wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Quite right. I think The Wild Geese is his best work.

Surely his best work is The Cannonball Run?

)

zaphod

mrbain007 wrote:

In the past I've had difficulty imagining Moore in scenes like the final of OHMSS. However after remembering SOME scenes in his films (the scene when he tells Anya he killed her lover in TSWLM for one) I'm sure he would have been at least capable of pulling it off.

OHMSS is for me and many others a highligt of the series. it truly benefitted from an injection of youthful energy from GL and his physicality is critical. Moore could never have pulled that off in a million years, he just moves to badly and lacks believability in action scenes. I also seriously doubt that the final scene could be delivered by RM without him inevitably 'chewing the scenery'

mrbain007

I agree its difficult to imagine Moore in that final scene (much more so than Dalton, Brosnan, Craig and even Connery) but not impossible. In FYEO and bits of TSWLM for instance, he shows he is capable of straight intense acting rather than winking at the camera.

Physically, I fully agree with you though. Moore was never a "natural fighter" in the way that Connery or Lazenby were.

JamesBondJunior

There's truth to the Bond films becoming lighter thanks to OHMSS' box office failure. But I could see Moore being very capable of starring in the serious Bond film. Rewatching LALD, I find Moore's early Bond to be a real jerk who's less about villlains and more about ladies. Which would have made him perfect for OHMSS.

I really think some fans exaggerate Moore's silliness in these films. They should blame the scripts and not how he handled them. When it comes to the more tense moments in films like Moonraker, FYEO and VTAK, he's fine as a Bond actor. The scripts of the 70s and late 80s were more commercial and satirical. You can't hate on him for doing his best with them. No other Bond actor, could have been as charming and funny throughout. Save for Sean, who is incredibly hilarious throughout DAF.

mrbain007

The truth is neither Connery, nor Moore, presented themselves as "vulnerable". Thats why IMO they are harder to envision in a scene like Tracy's death in OHMSS.

Loeffelholz

007 wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Quite right. I think The Wild Geese is his best work.

Surely his best work is The Cannonball Run?

It's better than three of his Bond films, for sure!

Thunderpussy

Moore's Best was "The Naked Face " IMHO

Blackleiter

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point about Moore. It's not just the lack of seriousness that infused most of Moore's Bond films. It is that he could never be the "complete" Bond, because as several have mentioned, he just looked too damned awkward in the action scenes. I'm sorry, but he was never believable as someone who is skilled in hand-to-hand combat, and that is essential to being taken seriously as 007. Connery was suave, sophisticated and funny when the script called for it, but you damned sure believed he could whip some tail when he needed to!

JamesBondJunior wrote:

There's truth to the Bond films becoming lighter thanks to OHMSS' box office failure. But I could see Moore being very capable of starring in the serious Bond film. Rewatching LALD, I find Moore's early Bond to be a real jerk who's less about villlains and more about ladies. Which would have made him perfect for OHMSS.

I really think some fans exaggerate Moore's silliness in these films. They should blame the scripts and not how he handled them. When it comes to the more tense moments in films like Moonraker, FYEO and VTAK, he's fine as a Bond actor. The scripts of the 70s and late 80s were more commercial and satirical. You can't hate on him for doing his best with them. No other Bond actor, could have been as charming and funny throughout. Save for Sean, who is incredibly hilarious throughout DAF.

JamesBondJunior

Blackleiter wrote:

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point about Moore. It's not just the lack of seriousness that infused most of Moore's Bond films. It is that he could never be the "complete" Bond, because as several have mentioned, he just looked too damned awkward in the action scenes. I'm sorry, but he was never believable as someone who is skilled in hand-to-hand combat, and that is essential to being taken seriously as 007. Connery was suave, sophisticated and funny when the script called for it, but you damned sure believed he could whip some tail when he needed to!

JamesBondJunior wrote:

There's truth to the Bond films becoming lighter thanks to OHMSS' box office failure. But I could see Moore being very capable of starring in the serious Bond film. Rewatching LALD, I find Moore's early Bond to be a real jerk who's less about villlains and more about ladies. Which would have made him perfect for OHMSS.

I really think some fans exaggerate Moore's silliness in these films. They should blame the scripts and not how he handled them. When it comes to the more tense moments in films like Moonraker, FYEO and VTAK, he's fine as a Bond actor. The scripts of the 70s and late 80s were more commercial and satirical. You can't hate on him for doing his best with them. No other Bond actor, could have been as charming and funny throughout. Save for Sean, who is incredibly hilarious throughout DAF.

Yes, he's the least intimidating Bond of them all. But I think he came off well enough in scenes like his fight with the martial artist in Moonraker. I hate how they avoid any fight scenes in LALD. He was always more of a gun and gadget Bond anyway. But the fact that he isn't a great fighter doesn't effect how believable he is in a serious Bond film or in OHMSS. Daniel Craig is the most believable fighter thus far, but I think he would be wrong for certain films.

Thunderpussy

How talented must Sir Roger be, Acording to Many here, He Can't act He can't Fight and He's too tounge in cheek.( I personaly think he was the perfect Bond for the 70's,we were all a lot more easy going then. The perm had caught on,Flares were all the rage,Slade was the top Band. A hard nosed gritty Bond just wouldn't of worked IMHO )Yet he still landed the Best action/thriller leading mans role on the planet.( until Die Hard & Indy began ) )
T Dalton is my favorite Bond yet I feel he looked arkward in his fight scenes,and wasn't as light on his feet as Connery/Lazenby. I also hate the way D Craig always pulls a face ( a grimace even ) when he throws a punch. or has to act Hard. As Peter Griffin pointed out to Meg at her first School play "I'm very aware I watching a play". I think he's trying too hard to be Jason Statham )

Blackleiter

I agree that Connery and Lazenby fared best in the fight scenes, although I don't have a problem with Daniel Craig's grimace either. But my point is still that ALL of the other Bond actors, including Dalton and Brosnan, appeared to be believable fighters, and Roger Moore - not at all! I realize that there are other characteristics besides fighting skills that are essential to a successful portrayal of our favorite spy, but fighting skills is way up there. Without that element, Roger Moore never really appeared to be dangerous or physically formidable, and that is one of the main reasons he resides at the bottom of my list of Bonds.

Thunderpussy wrote:

How talented must Sir Roger be, Acording to Many here, He Can't act He can't Fight and He's too tounge in cheek.( I personaly think he was the perfect Bond for the 70's,we were all a lot more easy going then. The perm had caught on,Flares were all the rage,Slade was the top Band. A hard nosed gritty Bond just wouldn't of worked IMHO )Yet he still landed the Best action/thriller leading mans role on the planet.( until Die Hard & Indy began ) )
T Dalton is my favorite Bond yet I feel he looked arkward in his fight scenes,and wasn't as light on his feet as Connery/Lazenby. I also hate the way D Craig always pulls a face ( a grimace even ) when he throws a punch. or has to act Hard. As Peter Griffin pointed out to Meg at her first School play "I'm very aware I watching a play". I think he's trying too hard to be Jason Statham )

zaphod

Blackleiter wrote:

I agree that Connery and Lazenby fared best in the fight scenes, although I don't have a problem with Daniel Craig's grimace either. But my point is still that ALL of the other Bond actors, including Dalton and Brosnan, appeared to be believable fighters, and Roger Moore - not at all! I realize that there are other characteristics besides fighting skills that are essential to a successful portrayal of our favorite spy, but fighting skills is way up there. Without that element, Roger Moore never really appeared to be dangerous or physically formidable, and that is one of the main reasons he resides at the bottom of my list of Bonds.

Thunderpussy wrote:

How talented must Sir Roger be, Acording to Many here, He Can't act He can't Fight and He's too tounge in cheek.( I personaly think he was the perfect Bond for the 70's,we were all a lot more easy going then. The perm had caught on,Flares were all the rage,Slade was the top Band. A hard nosed gritty Bond just wouldn't of worked IMHO )Yet he still landed the Best action/thriller leading mans role on the planet.( until Die Hard & Indy began ) )
T Dalton is my favorite Bond yet I feel he looked arkward in his fight scenes,and wasn't as light on his feet as Connery/Lazenby. I also hate the way D Craig always pulls a face ( a grimace even ) when he throws a punch. or has to act Hard. As Peter Griffin pointed out to Meg at her first School play "I'm very aware I watching a play". I think he's trying too hard to be Jason Statham )

I can live with the 'look how hard I am' grimace it's the pouting that bothers me 8-)

superdaddy

Loeffelholz wrote:

Quite right. I think The Wild Geese is his best work.

Watch Sea Wolves where he plays real life agent Gavin Stewart. If only he had played his Bond like that he probaly would have been the best a truly great performance imo.

thesecretagent

I know, it was Moore's best Bond performance to date. )

Loeffelholz

superdaddy wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Quite right. I think The Wild Geese is his best work.

Watch Sea Wolves where he plays real life agent Gavin Stewart. If only he had played his Bond like that he probaly would have been the best a truly great performance imo.

That's a good one too; I'm just partial to his Sean Fynn in Geese. The scene where he makes the guy eat the poison-laced cocaine ticks all the right boxes for me -{

Napoleon Plural

I have gone off Moore a bit since he owned up that he played Bond light because he took against the guns and admiration directed at a brutal character, also he says it's a comedy, seeing as he's 'secret' and yet everyone knows who he is.

In a way his approach made sense however, because the stunts and plots had upped the ante to a point where a more serious approach such as in Sea Wolves would have seemed silly, like Bond isn't in on the joke.

Yeah, he did have a funny kicking style didn't he?

Alex

If you really have to blame someone for Bond going the comic route, then blame the inevitable on the dozens and dozens of European spy flicks and spoofs still made during the golden age of the 1960s. If it wasn't Moore in the role it would have been someone else.

I don't feel we need a scape goat, the market was flooded way before Roger Moore took on the role. James Bond films became a victim of their own success.

mrbain007

The ironic thing is that the comic route didn't even begin with Moore. It began with Connery.

Blackleiter

I agree that it started with Connery's humorous quips and asides, but the genius of Sir Sean is that he still managed to keep the elements of menance and danger intact as well. Moore was never able to pull that off.

mrbain007 wrote:

The ironic thing is that the comic route didn't even begin with Moore. It began with Connery.

mrbain007

Blackleiter wrote:

I agree that it started with Connery's humorous quips and asides, but the genius of Sir Sean is that he still managed to keep the elements of menance and danger intact as well. Moore was never able to pull that off.

mrbain007 wrote:

The ironic thing is that the comic route didn't even begin with Moore. It began with Connery.

By the time DAF was coming round, Connery was looking tired and not particularly "dangerous". Also by DAF the humour was becoming a lot sillier ("I was looking for my pet rat and I seem to have lost my way")