Without Moore, the franchise would have died on its arse.

jonnybond78

Following on from from my comments on a previous topic. Does anyone agree that Without Moore,Bond could have easily ceased to exist in the cinema in the 70s. The decision to cast Moore was inspired. Compare it to the relative Box office disaster that was Lazenby (regardless of the continued kudos OHMSS gets from the purists). Consider that the spy mania thing of the 60s was in decline by this stage. Perhaps an older camper humerous Bond was required, rather than a serious Connery imitator. Had Lazenby or any other Macho kick arse hero carried the can into the 70s. I think game over for the franchise.

I for one think Connery is the best, but Sir Rog is a close second. I'd be interested to hear what the anti Moore brigade think of this point, subjectively.

Absolutely_Cart

Absolutely correct. Moore did save the series.

Before Moore, James Bond was a film series. After Roger Moore, it was a franchise. Lazenby was right. The series needed to break out of being "the establishment" or else it would have fallen under, and Moore did a perfectly good job in that.

Blackleiter

jonnybond78 wrote:

Following on from from my comments on a previous topic. Does anyone agree that Without Moore,Bond could have easily ceased to exist in the cinema in the 70s. The decision to cast Moore was inspired. Compare it to the relative Box office disaster that was Lazenby (regardless of the continued kudos OHMSS gets from the purists). Consider that the spy mania thing of the 60s was in decline by this stage. Perhaps an older camper humerous Bond was required, rather than a serious Connery imitator. Had Lazenby or any other Macho kick arse hero carried the can into the 70s. I think game over for the franchise.

I for one think Connery is the best, but Sir Rog is a close second. I'd be interested to hear what the anti Moore brigade think of this point, subjectively.

I don't really like being thought of as anti-Moore, although he is clearly my least favorite Bond. But be that as it may, I would be hard-pressed to argue that Moore didn't in fact have a lot to do with the survival of the franchise. It is clear that a large segment of the movie-going public took to his interpretation of the Bond character which allowed it continue so successfully after Connery's departure.

MilleniumForce

The franchise was going to die. Connery wasn't interested, and Lazenby's couldn't match up to Moore. Thank god he came out with LALD, or the series would have died there and then.

Moore Than

To say that Roger saved the series on his own would be doing a disservice to all those who worked behind the camera. It is to their eternal credit they all played a role in the series continuation. They produced the goods when needed most, Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Octopussy. Failure of either of those films would probably have meant the series going into hibernation for quite some time, if not ending for good.

To Roger's eternal credit he proved their was life after Sean Connery. There was more than one way to portray 007, paving the way for Timothy Dalton and those that followed to bring their own interpretation. Whether people liked his portrayal or not, he was always the professional. And even gave two of his best performances (FYEO, OP) toward the end of his tenure, in my opinion.

Gala Brand

jonnybond78 wrote:

Following on from from my comments on a previous topic. Does anyone agree that Without Moore,Bond could have easily ceased to exist in the cinema in the 70s. The decision to cast Moore was inspired. Compare it to the relative Box office disaster that was Lazenby (regardless of the continued kudos OHMSS gets from the purists). Consider that the spy mania thing of the 60s was in decline by this stage. Perhaps an older camper humerous Bond was required, rather than a serious Connery imitator. Had Lazenby or any other Macho kick arse hero carried the can into the 70s. I think game over for the franchise.

I for one think Connery is the best, but Sir Rog is a close second. I'd be interested to hear what the anti Moore brigade think of this point, subjectively.

No, the franchise wouldn't have died. Connery had established Bond as an iconic character. Bond could no more disappear entirely than Sherlock Holmes could. Worst case scenerio is that the franchise would go dormant for a few years, as it did in the early Nineties.

Absolutely_Cart

Moore may have been the only actor who could have follow up Connery.

Not even Connery could follow up Connery.

Charmed & Dangerous

I'm old enough to remember (just!) how positively everyone took to the news that Moore had been cast as Bond, after the announcement of Connery's seemingly final departure in '71. I remember my Mother & Father saying he was ideal, because he was so well liked, and so well established as The Saint, with many Bond-like qualities.

As Moore Than says, it was Roger Moore who made the role iconic by giving it a different but equally successful interpretation, rather than a string of Connery imitators. I can't think of any other actors in his generation who could have done such a good job. Maybe the franchise wouldn't have died on its arse, but it would not have been so successful. After all, why would Cubby Broccoli have continued to sign him for film after film until the mid 80s if there were other viable actors who would guarantee audiences the way Moore did?

AlphaOmegaSin

The Franchise would have lived on, whether Moore became Bond or not.

Higgins

The only imaginable scenario where the franchise would have died would be if Dalton would have taken over after Connery

He almost killed the franchise back then but it was too healthy after Sir Roger put it on an entire new level financially. Not sure if that was the case after Connery resigned.

Napoleon Plural

I've been watching The Avengers with Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg. The women came and went, although it has to be said they are almost the main event, and it went downhill when Rigg left. My point is, it is hard to recast Steed, as you can see when they did the movie version. The same problem existed with Bond back then, and be assured that Steed had plenty of trappings as did Bond ie Bentley, Bowler, umbrella with sword, female sidekick. Okay, he didn't have a catchphrase and I'm not sure anyone really wanted to be Steed the way they did Bond.

Moore did a heck of a lot it making an unlikeable character appealing, and as Ab Cart put it, made the series a franchise.

DEFIANT 74205

Gala Brand wrote:

jonnybond78 wrote:

Following on from from my comments on a previous topic. Does anyone agree that Without Moore,Bond could have easily ceased to exist in the cinema in the 70s. The decision to cast Moore was inspired. Compare it to the relative Box office disaster that was Lazenby (regardless of the continued kudos OHMSS gets from the purists). Consider that the spy mania thing of the 60s was in decline by this stage. Perhaps an older camper humerous Bond was required, rather than a serious Connery imitator. Had Lazenby or any other Macho kick arse hero carried the can into the 70s. I think game over for the franchise.

I for one think Connery is the best, but Sir Rog is a close second. I'd be interested to hear what the anti Moore brigade think of this point, subjectively.

No, the franchise wouldn't have died. Connery had established Bond as an iconic character. Bond could no more disappear entirely than Sherlock Holmes could. Worst case scenerio is that the franchise would go dormant for a few years, as it did in the early Nineties.

I agree with this. Even if Moore had never been Bond, the worst case scenario that could've happened is that the series laid dormant for several years until someone, somewhere, sometime, revives it. I'd personally rather see quality over quantity. We've had 23 Bond films, not all of which were great, and in my view, the Moore years were the most disappointing. His interpretation is the least Fleming-esque of all the actors who have played Bond.

Higgins wrote:

The only imaginable scenario where the franchise would have died would be if Dalton would have taken over after Connery

He almost killed the franchise back then but it was too healthy after Sir Roger put it on an entire new level financially. Not sure if that was the case after Connery resigned.

No, what nearly killed the franchise was the ongoing legal dispute between EON and McClory, and audiences who have been too conditioned to Moore's laid-back approach to Bond, which is the complete polar opposite to Fleming's Bond. Dalton had it right. He brought the real James Bond back.

AlphaOmegaSin

10 + for Dalton's Bond )

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

No, what nearly killed the franchise was the ongoing legal dispute between EON and McClory, and audiences who have been too conditioned to Moore's laid-back approach to Bond, which is the complete polar opposite to Fleming's Bond. Dalton had it right. He brought the real James Bond back.

Fact 1: Dalton has never been appreciated by the audiences like Moore was
Fact 2: Dalton would have not played the Bond in LALD that he played in TLD.
Fact 3: If Dalton would have been chosen, we would never have gotten TSWLM and MR - the movies where the franchise took off.

I don't know very much about the legal battle between EON and McClory, but wasn't it more about McClory trying to make another movie? How can this stop a potential new EON Bond?

I sense that EON and Cubby lost track and orientation after LTK.
The numbers where not great, the competition was huge and glamourous and they could not continue in the way they've done the last 2 movies.

And the Fleming-orientation did not do well (I say flopped) - the main actor flopped and Cubby's health faded as well.

Gala Brand

Napoleon Plural wrote:

I've been watching The Avengers with Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg. The women came and went, although it has to be said they are almost the main event, and it went downhill when Rigg left. My point is, it is hard to recast Steed, as you can see when they did the movie version. The same problem existed with Bond back then, and be assured that Steed had plenty of trappings as did Bond ie Bentley, Bowler, umbrella with sword, female sidekick. Okay, he didn't have a catchphrase and I'm not sure anyone really wanted to be Steed the way they did Bond.

Moore did a heck of a lot it making an unlikeable character appealing, and as Ab Cart put it, made the series a franchise.

I love the Diana Rigg-era Avengers, but John Steed is not an iconic character. You say the name "John Steed" and 19 out of 20 Americans wouldn't know who you are talking about. But everybody recognizes the name James Bond just as they recognize the name Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur or Huck Finn. Bond is more than a character, he represents a long list of virtues (and vices).

Sir Miles

Higgins wrote:

I don't know very much about the legal battle between EON and McClory, but wasn't it more about McClory trying to make another movie? How can this stop a potential new EON Bond?

Several ways....Eon's lawyers would have been very busy with court case and they would demand almost all of the time from Barbara & Michael (plus Cubby, who was ill)...also McClory counter-claimed...he was of the opinion he was jointly responsible for the 'Cinematic Bond' - at least ! This counter-claim would stop any further filming going ahead...

Higgins

The counter-claim was denied in 2000.
As GE came in 1995, this thing was still ongoing so there can't be reason that this claim stopped EON from making Bond movies

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

and audiences who have been too conditioned to Moore's laid-back approach to Bond, which is the complete polar opposite to Fleming's Bond. Dalton had it right. He brought the real James Bond back.

Now that's hilarious!

So it was Moore's fault that audiences did not warm up with Dalton and his different approach?
Wasn't it simply that Dalton's take did not convince the people for several reasons? He did not have the looks, the personality and the acting (yes, he's done Shakespeare and read books - great!) to get it right.

Craig has!

As I see it, people got a bit tired with Moore's style in Octopussy and AVTAK - I recall some moaning back then - so the window was open for a change. But Dalton simply screwed it up and it's time for the Timboys to face reality

Sir Miles

Higgins wrote:

The counter-claim was denied in 2000.
As GE came in 1995, this thing was still ongoing so there can't be reason that this claim stopped EON from making Bond movies

It reared its head everytime McClory tried to get funding together for a new film...so, whilst there is dispute, Eon couldn't film...plus can you imagine the money Eon had to spend to keep fighting these cases ? It must have drained their coffers...I doubt they had much left to start their own film in motion - add the ongoing woes of MGM at the time...money must have been very tight...

DEFIANT 74205

Higgins wrote:

Fact 1: Dalton has never been appreciated by the audiences like Moore was

Irrelevant to how good his portrayal actually was. Dalton played the literary Bond, but the audiences were too accustomed to Moore to appreciate that.

Higgins wrote:

Fact 2: Dalton would have not played the Bond in LALD that he played in TLD.

Conjecture, not fact.

Higgins wrote:

Fact 3: If Dalton would have been chosen, we would never have gotten TSWLM and MR - the movies where the franchise took off.

Again, conjecture, not fact.

Higgins wrote:

I don't know very much about the legal battle between EON and McClory, but wasn't it more about McClory trying to make another movie? How can this stop a potential new EON Bond?

McClory was trying to make another Bond film, and EON took legal action to stop them. That wasn't the only legal action that caused the hiatus, but there was also the legal action between Danjaq and MGM/UA.

From Moore's book, Bond on Bond, p161:

...a major spanner was thrown in the works when MGM/United Artists was sold to the Australian-based broadcasting group Qintex, which intern wanted to merge the company with Pathe. In doing so, the Bond back catalogue was licensed to Pathe for broadcast at sums below what was considered the commercial rate. Danjaq sued.

Eon commenced pre-production of another film in May 1990, and some details were unveiled at the Cannes Film Festival around the same time, mentioning that a detailed story draft had been written by Alfonso Ruggiero Jr and Michael G. Wilson.

However, owing to the ongoing legal disputes, the production of Timothy Dalton's third film was postponed several times. In an interview in 1993, Timothy said Michael France was writing the story for the film, which was 'due to begin production in January or February 1994'.

With continuing delays and uncertainty, Timothy's six-year contract expired in 1993 (which was originally scheduled to be the year of his fourth film) ...

- Roger Moore, Bond on Bond, Hardie Grant Books, 2012, 161

Higgins wrote:

I sense that EON and Cubby lost track and orientation after LTK.
The numbers where not great, the competition was huge and glamourous and they could not continue in the way they've done the last 2 movies.

Cubby certainly felt that someone else needed to take the helm at EON, but there was no inkling of any decision to replace Dalton. Dalton's contract simply expired and he chose not to renew it but rather seek new pursuits elsewhere. Contrary to what you might think, Dalton was highly regarded and was in fact approached to play Bond in 1969 for On Her Majesty's Secret Service. He was again the first choice to replace Roger Moore, not Brosnan.

Higgins wrote:

And the Fleming-orientation did not do well (I say flopped) - the main actor flopped and Cubby's health faded as well.

Dalton did not flop, he played Fleming's Bond better than anyone to date. The decision to go back to the Fleming roots was a great one. How it was received by audiences is quite frankly irrelevant.

DEFIANT 74205

Higgins wrote:

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

and audiences who have been too conditioned to Moore's laid-back approach to Bond, which is the complete polar opposite to Fleming's Bond. Dalton had it right. He brought the real James Bond back.

Now that's hilarious!

So it was Moore's fault that audiences did not warm up with Dalton and his different approach?
Wasn't it simply that Dalton's take did not convince the people for several reasons? He did not have the looks, the personality and the acting (yes, he's done Shakespeare and read books - great!) to get it right.

Craig has!

As I see it, people got a bit tired with Moore's style in Octopussy and AVTAK - I recall some moaning back then - so the window was open for a change. But Dalton simply screwed it up and it's time for the Timboys to face reality

No, Craig does not have the looks for Bond (too short, wrong hair colour), although I'll grant that his acting has been very good.

I didn't say it was Moore's fault that audiences didn't warm to Dalton. It's the audience's fault for not being familiar with the way Bond was meant to be - the Fleming way.

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

the way Bond was meant to be - the Fleming way.

That's totally personal opinion.

I'd say that this would have not worked from GF on.

Large parts of Flemings novels are weird, unspectacular and lenghty.
Taking some elements from his best novels and knit a movie around them sounds more promising and that's what they do

AlphaOmegaSin

Audiences just were not ready for the literary Version of Bond on Screen.

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

He was again the first choice to replace Roger Moore, not Brosnan.

Irrelevant because it later turned out that he was not accepted by the audiences

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

Dalton did not flop, he played Fleming's Bond better than anyone to date. The decision to go back to the Fleming roots was a great one. How it was received by audiences is quite frankly irrelevant.

Of course he flopped.
He failed to convince the cinema audience with his interpretation of Bond and he failed to convince them with his personality and appearance.

It does not matter what some Fleming-book-Nerds applaud, the cinema market voted with their feet against him and that's absolutely relevant.

We are discussing here majorly the cinematic portrayal or not?

DEFIANT 74205

Higgins wrote:

Large parts of Flemings novels are weird, unspectacular and lenghty.
Taking some elements from his best novels and knit a movie around them sounds more promising and that's what they do

I'm not talking about using the same plot as in the novels, I'm talking about using the same character as in the novels. James Bond is much more than just the name. Bond should be the same on screen as he is in print, in appearance, in behaviour, in mannerisms, preferences and vices. That's what makes the character, not the name.

Higgins wrote:

It does not matter what some Fleming-book-Nerds applaud, the cinema market voted with their feet against him and that's absolutely relevant.

You got it the wrong way around. What matters is not the box office, but rather how true to Fleming the films are.

Higgins

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Audiences just were not ready for the literary Version of Bond on Screen.

They where in 1969 when OHMSS came out

And as I have said: Large parts of Flemings novels are weird outdated and boring.
I can't see much from Fleming's Bond in Dalton besides the dark hair. Dalton played Bond too weary and too "romantic" with women.

I can see some of Flemings sadism in the LTK storyline - but Dalton had not much to do with that!

AlphaOmegaSin

I meant after Moore's long Tenure, the Transition from Comedic to Dark was a hard one to swallow (No Thunderpussy, that's not your cue to turn this into an Innuendo :v )

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

You got it the wrong way around. What matters is not the box office, but rather how true to Fleming the films are.

That's totally your personal opinion.
I guess, that Babs, Micky and the Sony guys would be on my side - they chose Craig and he was not fitting the literary Bond visually

Higgins

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I meant after Moore's long Tenure, the Transition from Comedic to Dark was a hard one to swallow (No Thunderpussy, that's not your cue to turn this into an Innuendo :v )

I don't know....
After a long line of comedic movies, they accepted Moore in a more serious FYEO.
It seems that the audiences have a much better and refined taste than you think

You can blame anyone and everyone for the lack of Dalton's success - at the end of the day it had a lot to do with the man himself!

Higgins

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

I'm not talking about using the same plot as in the novels, I'm talking about using the same character as in the novels. James Bond is much more than just the name. Bond should be the same on screen as he is in print, in appearance, in behaviour, in mannerisms, preferences and vices. That's what makes the character, not the name.

That won't work as well.
Novel Bond was also in parts a sadist, an unfaithful macho - beating women and so on.

If you'd really take him 1:1 out of the novels - I can hear the pc people the feminists howling and it would be also a very weird show.

Deal with it: If you like Bond 1:1 out of the novels, you are in the absolute minority and I can hardly imagine that even BL would agree as the Novel Bond was a racist in large parts as well.

chrisisall

Higgins wrote:

Deal with it: If you like Bond 1:1 out of the novels, you are in the absolute minority

I for one am just fine with that as the MAJORITY out there are mindless fools that are barely able to drive to work without hitting something much less able to appreciate quality in a motion picture. )