Another comment on Moore's age... he was the magic Bond, the superhuman Bond. Unlike Craig or Connery, we never quite believed he could fight his way out of a corner, it was his nonchalance and cool that did it, like he had superhuman powers. So in that sense it wasn't such a big ask to expect us to believe he could still do the biz at 58, esp once you factor in experience. In a sense you never really believed he did it anyway, whatever his age.
Nearest example today might be Cumberbatch as Holmes, and how he magically deducts his way to a solution, we are meant to look on in awe.
It's simple, they were playing it safe and didn't want to get a new Bond actor. Had they reconsidered another Bond, I think it would have been Timothy Dalton but I believe that neither him or Pierce Brosnan were available in 1984.
He was MY Bond in the cinema and almost a member of the family from his many brilliant tv shows, I'd watch
as a kid. So I had no problem with him getting older after all He was freaking Roger Moore he Was James Bond !
( just my two cents )
for many with Roger's passing we didn't just lose a talented actor but a childhood friend.
What year is this picture? It says something about his youthfulness that I can't tell at all!
He was MY Bond in the cinema and almost a member of the family from his many brilliant tv shows, I'd watch
as a kid. So I had no problem with him getting older after all He was freaking Roger Moore he Was James Bond !
( just my two cents )
for many with Roger's passing we didn't just lose a talented actor but a childhood friend.
What year is this picture? It says something about his youthfulness that I can't tell at all!
This is from Live and Let Die. It's the shirt and suit trousers that he wears in New York.
Another comment on Moore's age... he was the magic Bond, the superhuman Bond. Unlike Craig or Connery, we never quite believed he could fight his way out of a corner, it was his nonchalance and cool that did it, like he had superhuman powers. So in that sense it wasn't such a big ask to expect us to believe he could still do the biz at 58, esp once you factor in experience. In a sense you never really believed he did it anyway, whatever his age.
Nearest example today might be Cumberbatch as Holmes, and how he magically deducts his way to a solution, we are meant to look on in awe.
Seeing my earlier post in this old thread, I missed commenting about the experiential aspect of watching a 57-year old Roger Moore in AVTAK and the question of why he was used. As an 18-year old Bond fan then as well as being part of the larger movie going audience, the answer was simple, he was the Bond I grew up with and he was the Bond who was in residence. Around that time I was experiencing my Bond awakening and had started on the books, naturally realizing the contrasts between them against EON’s version. Nevertheless, I experienced nothing but comfort, a pleasant familiarity and not least of all, excitement when I watched Roger Moore on screen and in fact I came back to watch AVTAK many more times that summer. I must confess that the announcement of first, Brosnan, then Dalton (at Higgin’s delight) for TLD excited me because of my book reading, but on the verge of adulthood I had utter admiration for Roger Moore in AVTAK, for His suaveness, sophistication and confidence that made me believe he was indeed Bond and that he definitely made a sweaty mess in the iceberg mini-sub with that hot blonde number!
Seeing the silly mincing of words earlier in this thread about exactly how recent Sir Roger had passed, I saw a similar recent post on my FB feed from a guy who wasn’t aware that it’s been more than a year already. Not only was he chided by someone else who was more in the know, but the same callous ass also said “now we’re just waiting for Sean Connery to die” (WTF?!?) I sometimes forget how ugly this world can be and social media just shows how the existence of degenerates is widespread despite the enlightenment we should be experiencing with all the social advancements we’ve accomplished since the last century.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think a lot of us would accept Moore at his age in AVTAK better if they just would have had him act his age in the movie and have older love interests, and actually act like he is getting too old for this crap, as the saying goes. At least in NSNA, they acknowledged Connery's age, and Bond retire in the end, and I feel if they did that with Moore's couple of last outings, especially AVTAK, it would have played much better, even today with fans. Do you think?
you know that's not such a bad idea.
I recently watched Pierce Brosnan in November Man, and he really made that aged spy angle work. Much more violent, cynical, worldweary type of film though, Roger never would have done it.
I have an issue with aVTaK because of the elements that try to update it for a younger audience. Between Grace Jones and Duran Duran it is the MTV Bond film, and Roger and his pals do not look like they belong on MTV.
so yeh, either recast a younger Bond already, or write a story appropriate to an older actor.
I can't imagine any other actor playing Bond in AVTAK. Nothing wrong with an older man playing the part. I understand the argument that this is Bond for the mtv crowd, but separately from that, Moore does just fine in this film.
This thread seems odd to me. Although not a RM fan AVTAK is one of his best in my view. Agree that embracing and allowing him to play an older Bond would have improved it. He was not so much 'allowed' to play Bond as begged to if my recollection is correct. The real issue if there is one is why EON were so frightened of choosing another actor that they stuck with what they had. There may be some echo of that now with waiting for Daniel to get back on the pot. The Lazenby experience left a long legacy which kind of paralysed them in my view. Also with each film achieving good box office change was risky.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
He was MY Bond in the cinema and almost a member of the family from his many brilliant tv shows, I'd watch
as a kid. So I had no problem with him getting older after all He was freaking Roger Moore he Was James Bond !
( just my two cents )
for many with Roger's passing we didn't just lose a talented actor but a childhood friend.
What year is this picture? It says something about his youthfulness that I can't tell at all!
This is from Live and Let Die. It's the shirt and suit trousers that he wears in New York.
I'm getting a GG vibe from this , looks similar to something he wore in the movie ?:)
What year is this picture? It says something about his youthfulness that I can't tell at all!
This is from Live and Let Die. It's the shirt and suit trousers that he wears in New York.
I'm getting a GG vibe from this , looks similar to something he wore in the movie ?:)
It's a bit similar, but his shirts in The Man with the Golden Gun don't have a fly front like the shirt in Live and Let Die have. And the suit trousers in Live and Let Die have the side adjusters seen here, while they all have a belt in The Man with the Golden Gun. The general styles of the clothes didn't change much since the same tailor and shirtmaker were involved. His hair was also slightly longer at the sides in TMWTGG.
I think it is his weakest Bond but not because of how he looks. He gets away with it because he had a youthful appearance to begin with. In real life he would not have stood a chance but it is movie magic that gets him by.
People who are critical of Moore (and there are legitimate reasons to criticize his portrayal of Bond) tend not to remember just how well-liked he was during his tenure in the role. He helped pull a whole new generation of Bond fans into the fold after Connery faded away and Lazenby failed to fill his shoes. (Don't get me wrong - I loved Lazenby, but we have to admit he wasn't well-received popularly.)
Moore is probably the reason Bond survived the 1980's; Broccoli was shrewd enough to know it, and it's why he kept him around as long as he possibly could.
He was MY Bond in the cinema and almost a member of the family from his many brilliant tv shows, I'd watch
as a kid. So I had no problem with him getting older after all He was freaking Roger Moore he Was James Bond !
( just my two cents )
for many with Roger's passing we didn't just lose a talented actor but a childhood friend.
What year is this picture? It says something about his youthfulness that I can't tell at all!
This is from Live and Let Die. It's the shirt and suit trousers that he wears in New York.
I know I'm not the only one who can identify the vintage of a Roger Bond photo from his face alone! That's clearly LALD vintage Roger.
The big change, for me, is between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. Rog seems to age all of a sudden between the two films and this is the point Q branch begin supplying him with extra hair. His toup in FYEO actually looks pretty good to me.
Its the same as with Daniel Craig. Roger was well liked and his films were profitable so casting a new bond felt risky until there was no choice. Ive no doubt that if he was 10 years younger he would have done the Dalton films too.
"You're in the wrong business... leave it to the professionals!"
James Bond- Licence To Kill
To be honest, if we go back and look at what Roger Moore looked like and how he played the role across his seven films:
1. Live And Let Die (1973) - Genuinely looks very young for 45, and definitely well in shape to play Bond. He is still learning the role at this time, so although he doesn't provide his best performance, he does bring his comedic style into it.
2. The Man With The Golden Gun (1974) - He returns and this time, whether it is the producers or his own doing, his comedic style goes right up but on the other end of the spectrum, he becomes deadly serious and there are some tense dis-likable moments such as the awkward moment between him and Maud Adams in the hotel room. So he's still developing, but he is still very much in shape for 46.
3. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - There is a noticeable age gap here, but he seems more mature and is fully developed into the role. He gives a solid great performance with a nice balance between comedy and seriousness, and looks great at 49.
4. Moonraker (1979) - Again, another more ageing visible where he still looks in great shape, but you can tell he's approaching the 50's. Another solid performance, but too campy throughout.
5. For Your Eyes Only (1981) - He looks a lot older here, really. At 53, Moore does start to slow down, but his performance is my favourite here making it very serious. I loved everything about his acting on the film, and have no complaints about the way he looks.
6. Octopussy (1983) - On this one we are bordering what is potentially becoming too old. He doesn't look that much different than in Eyes Only, but in his face and performance there are points where you can tell he's getting on at 55. I had no problems with his performance, which kind of reverts back to comedy, but he looks as if this should have been his last one.
7. A View To A Kill (1985) - At this point, it's like he has aged a hundred years between this and the last film. He 'looks' too old to play Bond here, no doubt about it at 57, and there are so many stunt doubles throughout the movie - probably because he couldn't do many of the action scenes anymore. While I love AVTAK due to many of it's other aspects, the plastic surgery he had did not work in his favour, but he does seem to be thinner and somehow more energetic than in OP.
So for me, his age was not a problem until AVTAK, as much as I hate to admit it. I reckon the producers only brought him back to play it 'safe', as finding another actor took a lot of effort after Connery bowed out the first time, and then the second time. After Spy, his contract was renewed on a film to film basis.
Timothy Dalton was asked to replace Roger Moore twice, for For Your Eyes Only in which he declined because he didn't like the way the films were heading because of MR (and John Glen wanted his first film to be with Roger Moore), and Octopussy to which I believe Moore was given, because of NSNA.
I tend to agree that For Your Eyes Only is the point where Moore starts to look too old to play Bond, but he gets away with it due to his excellent performance, an equally middle-aged and world-weary villain and ally, and a well-judged "mentor" relationship with Melina (contrasting Bond's pragmatism with her thirst for revenge). What they hoped to achieve with the hotel scene with Bibi baffles me, however: having a supposedly 16-year-old girl attempting to seduce Bond simply underscores their age difference.
They got away with it in Octopussy due to another glib middle-aged villain and a wealthy, mature and cosmopolitan Bond girl with whom Moore has a much more equal relationship. It all goes off the rails in A View To A Kill, however: the scenes with Patrick Macnee are charming, and I would have enjoyed a whole film about a couple of ageing agents having fun together, but the contrast between the young, fit Christopher Walken and Tanya Roberts and the increasingly elderly Moore is painful. In all previous Bond films, Bond had appeared younger and fitter than his main opponent, but this time it's the other way round.
Still, I don't think any of Moore's performances sink to the depths of Connery's flabby, hairy, disinterested Bond in Diamonds Are Forever; the incredible thing is how much younger and more energetic he looked in Never Say Never Again 12 years later.
I don't have a problem with Moore's age in AVTAK, only that it is cringeworthy when paired with women more than half his age. If they had used more age-appropriate women in the film (mature women can be sexy too, as Monica Bellucci proved in SP), it would have worked better. Paula Inavova is the only one who works for me. I also love the idea of playing up Bond's age - there is a scene that was cut when M gets Bond out of jail that would have helped play up this angle. It's a pity they didn't do more of this in the film.
I think Roger looks great until AVTAK. In MR, FYEO and OP he was fine.
IN AVTAK, he had (I suspect) a facelift, which was why his mole disappeared, as it would have moved (he said in his book that it was for safety skin-cancer related reasons, but I think that was a fib). He also was ill, I understand, a little time before shooting started so the weight loss may have been a factor. People who are slightly fat in the face have less wrinkles, which is why Tom Cruise has fat taken out of his arse and injected into his face (or so I've read).
Curiously, in 1984'S The Naked Face, he looks the same as he did in OP. (That film, by the way, has the same ending as OHMSS so is worth a glance if anyone wants to know how Roger may have played it.)
I think many, particularly Wadsy, hit the nail on regarding Moore re:age. That said, while he does start to look older in the part in FYEO... I think it suit him, because he played Bond as an older, wearier version of himself. He wasn't about to retire, surely, but he did impart wisdom quotes like the "two graves" line and could let his anger overtake him more often, like it did in his youth (as Connery/Lazenby, I mean). So for me, while Dalton coming in on FYEO would absolutely have been smashing and the sheer opportunity for five Dalton movies is simply awesome, ultimately it was a good move to keep Moore, as it allowed his interpretation to put to rest both of Moore's acting ability and of the franchise's ability to utlize their leading man however they wanted. And of course, they HAD to keep him for OP, and honestly, as I've said before, that film was like an homage to Moore's entire tenure as Bond, and Moore accordingly portrays him as such, an amalgamation of his time on Bond. It was so fitting, it really should've been the end, right there. And how fitting - the battle of the Bonds ends with both Bonds calling it quits...
... of course, as history proved, not only is Sean Connery stubborn, so was Albert Broccoli. And as he insisted, so he got Roger Moore for a seventh entry. And to be honest, he's fine, but he's simply unconvicing because he visibly looks way older than all the stunt men who are CLEARLY and visibly covering him up in half the movie, making both his performance stick out like a shore thumb and the fact that he shouldn't have been in this at all seem pretty frickin' obvious. It doesn't help that the rest of the film is a washed out effort, and its really too bad, because Roger Moore simply deserved better.
Comments
Nearest example today might be Cumberbatch as Holmes, and how he magically deducts his way to a solution, we are meant to look on in awe.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
What year is this picture? It says something about his youthfulness that I can't tell at all!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This is from Live and Let Die. It's the shirt and suit trousers that he wears in New York.
Seeing my earlier post in this old thread, I missed commenting about the experiential aspect of watching a 57-year old Roger Moore in AVTAK and the question of why he was used. As an 18-year old Bond fan then as well as being part of the larger movie going audience, the answer was simple, he was the Bond I grew up with and he was the Bond who was in residence. Around that time I was experiencing my Bond awakening and had started on the books, naturally realizing the contrasts between them against EON’s version. Nevertheless, I experienced nothing but comfort, a pleasant familiarity and not least of all, excitement when I watched Roger Moore on screen and in fact I came back to watch AVTAK many more times that summer. I must confess that the announcement of first, Brosnan, then Dalton (at Higgin’s delight) for TLD excited me because of my book reading, but on the verge of adulthood I had utter admiration for Roger Moore in AVTAK, for His suaveness, sophistication and confidence that made me believe he was indeed Bond and that he definitely made a sweaty mess in the iceberg mini-sub with that hot blonde number!
Seeing the silly mincing of words earlier in this thread about exactly how recent Sir Roger had passed, I saw a similar recent post on my FB feed from a guy who wasn’t aware that it’s been more than a year already. Not only was he chided by someone else who was more in the know, but the same callous ass also said “now we’re just waiting for Sean Connery to die” (WTF?!?) I sometimes forget how ugly this world can be and social media just shows how the existence of degenerates is widespread despite the enlightenment we should be experiencing with all the social advancements we’ve accomplished since the last century.
I recently watched Pierce Brosnan in November Man, and he really made that aged spy angle work. Much more violent, cynical, worldweary type of film though, Roger never would have done it.
I have an issue with aVTaK because of the elements that try to update it for a younger audience. Between Grace Jones and Duran Duran it is the MTV Bond film, and Roger and his pals do not look like they belong on MTV.
so yeh, either recast a younger Bond already, or write a story appropriate to an older actor.
I'm getting a GG vibe from this , looks similar to something he wore in the movie ?:)
It's a bit similar, but his shirts in The Man with the Golden Gun don't have a fly front like the shirt in Live and Let Die have. And the suit trousers in Live and Let Die have the side adjusters seen here, while they all have a belt in The Man with the Golden Gun. The general styles of the clothes didn't change much since the same tailor and shirtmaker were involved. His hair was also slightly longer at the sides in TMWTGG.
https://www.gettyimages.com/license/108801105
It's a great shot. The shirt just screams quality. RM looks at his absolute best in LALD The clothes are so much better than the the look for DAF.
Moore is probably the reason Bond survived the 1980's; Broccoli was shrewd enough to know it, and it's why he kept him around as long as he possibly could.
I know I'm not the only one who can identify the vintage of a Roger Bond photo from his face alone! That's clearly LALD vintage Roger.
James Bond- Licence To Kill
Monkey glands, some kind of deal with the Devil or some such. It's not normal.
1. Live And Let Die (1973) - Genuinely looks very young for 45, and definitely well in shape to play Bond. He is still learning the role at this time, so although he doesn't provide his best performance, he does bring his comedic style into it.
2. The Man With The Golden Gun (1974) - He returns and this time, whether it is the producers or his own doing, his comedic style goes right up but on the other end of the spectrum, he becomes deadly serious and there are some tense dis-likable moments such as the awkward moment between him and Maud Adams in the hotel room. So he's still developing, but he is still very much in shape for 46.
3. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - There is a noticeable age gap here, but he seems more mature and is fully developed into the role. He gives a solid great performance with a nice balance between comedy and seriousness, and looks great at 49.
4. Moonraker (1979) - Again, another more ageing visible where he still looks in great shape, but you can tell he's approaching the 50's. Another solid performance, but too campy throughout.
5. For Your Eyes Only (1981) - He looks a lot older here, really. At 53, Moore does start to slow down, but his performance is my favourite here making it very serious. I loved everything about his acting on the film, and have no complaints about the way he looks.
6. Octopussy (1983) - On this one we are bordering what is potentially becoming too old. He doesn't look that much different than in Eyes Only, but in his face and performance there are points where you can tell he's getting on at 55. I had no problems with his performance, which kind of reverts back to comedy, but he looks as if this should have been his last one.
7. A View To A Kill (1985) - At this point, it's like he has aged a hundred years between this and the last film. He 'looks' too old to play Bond here, no doubt about it at 57, and there are so many stunt doubles throughout the movie - probably because he couldn't do many of the action scenes anymore. While I love AVTAK due to many of it's other aspects, the plastic surgery he had did not work in his favour, but he does seem to be thinner and somehow more energetic than in OP.
So for me, his age was not a problem until AVTAK, as much as I hate to admit it. I reckon the producers only brought him back to play it 'safe', as finding another actor took a lot of effort after Connery bowed out the first time, and then the second time. After Spy, his contract was renewed on a film to film basis.
Timothy Dalton was asked to replace Roger Moore twice, for For Your Eyes Only in which he declined because he didn't like the way the films were heading because of MR (and John Glen wanted his first film to be with Roger Moore), and Octopussy to which I believe Moore was given, because of NSNA.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
They got away with it in Octopussy due to another glib middle-aged villain and a wealthy, mature and cosmopolitan Bond girl with whom Moore has a much more equal relationship. It all goes off the rails in A View To A Kill, however: the scenes with Patrick Macnee are charming, and I would have enjoyed a whole film about a couple of ageing agents having fun together, but the contrast between the young, fit Christopher Walken and Tanya Roberts and the increasingly elderly Moore is painful. In all previous Bond films, Bond had appeared younger and fitter than his main opponent, but this time it's the other way round.
Still, I don't think any of Moore's performances sink to the depths of Connery's flabby, hairy, disinterested Bond in Diamonds Are Forever; the incredible thing is how much younger and more energetic he looked in Never Say Never Again 12 years later.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
IN AVTAK, he had (I suspect) a facelift, which was why his mole disappeared, as it would have moved (he said in his book that it was for safety skin-cancer related reasons, but I think that was a fib). He also was ill, I understand, a little time before shooting started so the weight loss may have been a factor. People who are slightly fat in the face have less wrinkles, which is why Tom Cruise has fat taken out of his arse and injected into his face (or so I've read).
Curiously, in 1984'S The Naked Face, he looks the same as he did in OP. (That film, by the way, has the same ending as OHMSS so is worth a glance if anyone wants to know how Roger may have played it.)
... of course, as history proved, not only is Sean Connery stubborn, so was Albert Broccoli. And as he insisted, so he got Roger Moore for a seventh entry. And to be honest, he's fine, but he's simply unconvicing because he visibly looks way older than all the stunt men who are CLEARLY and visibly covering him up in half the movie, making both his performance stick out like a shore thumb and the fact that he shouldn't have been in this at all seem pretty frickin' obvious. It doesn't help that the rest of the film is a washed out effort, and its really too bad, because Roger Moore simply deserved better.