Could you imagine Roger Moore starring in Diamonds Are Forever?

JohnMasterson

I don't know about you, but in this hypothetical situation I can kinda/sorta see it happening in my head, because 1971's Diamonds Are Forever is exactly the type of campy Bond film that Roger Moore was used to doing for twelve years...So Diamonds would've been right up his alley!

Agent Sidewinder

Maybe, but not even Roger would have been enough to make it a really decent Bond film.

JohnMasterson

Agent Sidewinder wrote:

Maybe, but not even Roger would have been enough to make it a really decent Bond film.

The same thing could be said about Live and Let Die & The Man with the Golden Gun. And when you think about it really the only reason why Diamonds wasn't as good as YOLT in terms of production value is because they had spent almost the entire budget on Sean Connery but maybe if Roger Moore had been available much earlier they could have spent the money on Moore and they still would've had the budget to make Diamonds.

Napoleon Plural

True, including a better ending. But for some of us, it's Connery that makes the film, his superbly droll delivery for instance. Without him, it would be a bit like Golden Gun, a bit of fluff. Connery, for me, always lends gravitas. And I never really wanted to see Moore take on Blofeld personally.

Hardyboy

Actually, no, I can't. I can certainly see how Diamonds sets up the lighter, campier Moore era; but in DAF Bond is still seen roughing up several people in the PTS and he has a pretty nasty fight with Peter Franks in the elevator. There's still a brutal edge to this Bond that I associate with Connery, and which isn't really a part of Moore's 007--or, when you see it, as in his slapping Andrea in TMWTGG, seems out of character.

JohnMasterson

Hardyboy wrote:

Actually, no, I can't. I can certainly see how Diamonds sets up the lighter, campier Moore era; but in DAF Bond is still seen roughing up several people in the PTS and he has a pretty nasty fight with Peter Franks in the elevator. There's still a brutal edge to this Bond that I associate with Connery, and which isn't really a part of Moore's 007--or, when you see it, as in his slapping Andrea in TMWTGG, seems out of character.

Yes, but continuity-wise, when you think about Diamonds Are Forever in terms of being a successor to You Only Live Twice it makes no sense because Connery's Bond was looking old, fat and tired during YOLT's fighting choreography and yet he was able to easily thrash the henchmen in DAF? Where's the logic in that?

Napoleon Plural

Well, logic isn't really a Bond strength as a whole. Anyway, the guy he struggled with in YOLT was a fighting fit type, not like Peter Franks who was a fit, ordinary bloke really. It's not like Wint and Kidd were anything in the physical stakes either (though in bed, who knows? Each other I suppose.)

JohnMasterson

Napoleon Plural wrote:

True, including a better ending. But for some of us, it's Connery that makes the film, his superbly droll delivery for instance. Without him, it would be a bit like Golden Gun, a bit of fluff. Connery, for me, always lends gravitas. And I never really wanted to see Moore take on Blofeld personally.

Oh by the way, I had meant to bring this up earlier but it had almost completely slipped my mind until now...Didn't Roger Moore's James Bond character kill Ernest Starvo Blofeld in the FYEO pre-title sequence? Because it seemed like whomever had played Blofeld in that movie was trying to imitate Anthony Dawson's performance as Ernest Starvo Blofled from 1963's From Russia With Love up until Bond had grabbed ahold of Blofeld with the helicopter. And then the inevitable screaming and begging for mercy happened because apparently Blofeld couldn't face death with some dignity and pride.

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, that was meant to be Blofeld, not named for legal reasons. I think also Cubby Broccoli wanted to use the scene to traduce the character, to make it harder for Kevin McClory to bring him back with any credibility in a rival film, hence the screaming and begging for mercy, and death of course.

JohnMasterson

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Yeah, that was meant to be Blofeld, not named for legal reasons. I think also Cubby Broccoli wanted to use the scene to traduce the character, to make it harder for Kevin McClory to bring him back with any credibility in a rival film, hence the screaming and begging for mercy, and death of course.

Anyway my point is, that little scene with Roger Moore killing Blofeld at the beginning of FYEO was kinda like Moore's Bond character taking on Ernest Starvo Blofeld but it just happened to be a very brief encounter that's all! Because they needed to get this old storyline wrapped up and out of the way fast, so they could focus on a much bigger threat than a washed-up, wheelchair-prone, former head of SPECTRE.

GaddGeneGadd

Without a doubt. I have found Sir Sean and Sir Rog almost interchangeable in the two films. Guy Hamilton directed both movies with the same style and budget. The Joke had run out by TMWTGG ( Hamilton's last turn as a Bond director )

Bodie

Unfortunately, without any dificulty whatsoever. DAF laid the foundations for the Roger Moore comedies to follow.

Blood_Stone

Yes. He would've been a perfect fit and it would've been a better way to introduce him than the lackluster LALD.

JohnMasterson

I stand by my previous assessment that this film would've been a good fit for Sir Roger Moore, however, I believe Roger might have had some difficulty selling this line had he been in the film to say it, "Welcome to Hell, Blofeld."

Because while that line is not as dark as, "In my job. When I come up against a man like this one, I have another motto. It's 'Live and Let Die,'" it's still a dark line and I doubt Roger does dark humor, well.