Why did they not replace Roger Moore in 1980?

ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
edited January 2015 in Actors Posts: 757
Roger Moore was signed to three film contract, with an option to a 4th, which he fulfilled after moonraker. The producers ended up going back to roger three additional times after that, rather than replacing him when Moore, himself, thinks they should have. Roger Moore was ready to go after moonraker, but more money kept being thrown at him. My question, why? Was cubby scared to replace him after the lazenby fiasco?
Discuss
«13456713

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    It's been a long time since I read any of this stuff, so I can't remember all the details.

    I think money talks. Moonraker was an absolute box office smash in 1979 and the highest grossing film worldwide ($210M unadjusted) for that year (so it did better than SF did in 2012 relatively speaking in terms of yearly rank). Moore was well established in the role and easy to work with. Cubby and he got along very well. He only wanted more money all the time.

    Some of the names that were bandied about then to replace Moore (and I can't remember them all but Lewis Collins and James Brolin come to mind) would not have been able to keep the franchise alive. The early 80's were a difficult time for Bond so in a way it's good Moore stuck around IMO. At least he was bankable.

    It's very difficult to just let go of a box office draw like that.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Moore kept saying each of his last three were his last and other actors would be mentioned and the magazines would have a field day speculating, but then the money kept pouring in until finally cubby reached his moment of epiphany in 1985
  • Posts: 1,974
    I think Moores contract was for 3 films only. After TSWLM every film he did was on a 1 contract per film deal.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot
  • Posts: 1,974
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot

    Maybe because Live and Let Die didn't do so bad in the box office and that they still had hope for him as bond after Golden Gun. They might as well use him for the 1 more film he is under contract for and if TSWLM does shit at the box office then ditch him.

    Also Daltons contract expired in 1994 and Dalton chose to leave Bond.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Yeah, true. I just hated that 6 year gap. Not great. At all.
  • Posts: 1,680
    They were going to hire a new actor but when Never say Never Again was announced cubby wanted to stick with a known Bond to compete with Connery.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    James brolin! He was thisclose to being bond. Terrifying
  • Posts: 1,146
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot

    No kidding.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    The reviews were not great for live and let die--yeah it made money--but the reviews and box office for the next one were even worse
  • Posts: 1,146
    James brolin! He was thisclose to being bond. Terrifying

    Proof that EON is not perfect.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 1,778
    Something nobody's mentioned yet is that John Glen pushed pretty heavily to get Moore back for FYEO. The reason being that Glen making his directorial debut was pressure enough. Having to establish a new James Bond on top of that would've been too much.

    fjdinardo wrote: »
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot

    Maybe because Live and Let Die didn't do so bad in the box office and that they still had hope for him as bond after Golden Gun. They might as well use him for the 1 more film he is under contract for and if TSWLM does shit at the box office then ditch him.

    Also Daltons contract expired in 1994 and Dalton chose to leave Bond.

    LALD did alot more than just "not bad". Adjusted for inflation it grossed over $671 million. Compare that to the $411 million OHMSS grossed only 4 years prior. Clearly audiences liked Moore as Bond.

    Then take into account the $721,380 mil TSWLM made and MR being the highest grossing film of 1979, it would've made no business sense to not try to get Moore to do another film. As a matter of fact, adjusted for 2014 dollars, LADL, TSWLM, and MR all outgrossed all of Brosnan's movies. While the TSWLM and MR outgrossed Craig's first two films. Say what you will about him but Moore put butts in seats during the 70s.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Roger Moore was signed to three film contract, with an option to a 4th, which he fulfilled after moonraker. The producers ended up going back to roger three additional times after that, rather than replacing him when Moore, himself, thinks they should have. Roger Moore was ready to go after moonraker, but more money kept being thrown at him. My question, why? Was cubby scared to replace him after the lazenby fiasco?
    Discuss

    Because, in all honesty. I think Roger Moore made his best films with "Octopussy" and especially "For Your Eyes Only". Those were more realistic Cold War-esque spy thrillers in which -apart from the clown suit- Bond was emotionally more multi-layered and at times also a very cold blooded killer.

    So lesson to be learnt: Keep the Bond actor once he is a proven success and even if you can do so much more with him after 4 films :-).
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 1,778
    Roger Moore was signed to three film contract, with an option to a 4th, which he fulfilled after moonraker. The producers ended up going back to roger three additional times after that, rather than replacing him when Moore, himself, thinks they should have. Roger Moore was ready to go after moonraker, but more money kept being thrown at him. My question, why? Was cubby scared to replace him after the lazenby fiasco?
    Discuss

    Because, in all honesty. I think Roger Moore made his best films with "Octopussy" and especially "For Your Eyes Only". Those were more realistic Cold War-esque spy thrillers in which -apart from the clown suit- Bond was emotionally more multi-layered and at times also a very cold blooded killer.

    So lesson to be learnt: Keep the Bond actor once he is a proven success and even if you can do so much more with him after 4 films :-).

    I feel the same way. Although TSWLM and MR are considered Moore's peak from a commercial stand-point, to me FYEO and Octopussy were hands down his best films. I didn't even care that he was getting on in age. To me Octopussy would've been the perfect movie for Moore to retire on.
  • Posts: 1,146
    The reviews were not great for live and let die--yeah it made money--but the reviews and box office for the next one were even worse

    It's just too bad that Lazenby was an idiot, or we would have been treated to more of him and Peter Hunt in the 1970's/early '80's, which is easily the worst decade for Bond films in terms of quality. An increasingly older Moore hitting on increasingly younger women, more and more comedy inserted into the films to bring them on par with the Pink Panther films, the lessening of jeopardy to the point where cartoon gags were commonplace, the series basically became a joke, being passed by the Lucas/Spielberg/ Scott/Cameron films as the blockbusters of the decade.

    There's a reason that Sean Connery was Indy's dad, not the soft, pithy and comedic Moore.

    Connery meant adventure. Moore meant a laugh.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    ........ To me Octopussy would've been the perfect movie for Moore to retire on.

    Completely agree. He would have gone out on an all time high having beaten Connery at the box office. Shame he stayed on for AVTAK.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,992
    David Warbeck was very close to being cast around 1980 (some sources suggets that he was also in the running in 1972/3, and was paid to be on standby after Moore was cast, though I have not seen anything to back that up). In his book, David Warbeck: The Man And His Movies, he talks about his almost being cast (as well as his thoughs on the then recently released film, GoldenEye); meeting John Glenn, and the discussions about how much humour should be in the films.

    Being a fan of Warbeck, I think he would have made a fine Bond. He had the right look, and charisma in spades.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    I never understood why Moore did a view to a kill. He's made all these negative comments on the film over the years, and I've always rolled my eyes, wondering if he even read the script at all or did he just show up on day one and do what glen and cubby told him to do. Yes, roger, there is violence in the film. No, it's not for kids.
  • Posts: 1,974
    Something nobody's mentioned yet is that John Glen pushed pretty heavily to get Moore back for FYEO. The reason being that Glen making his directorial debut was pressure enough. Having to establish a new James Bond on top of that would've been too much.

    fjdinardo wrote: »
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot

    Maybe because Live and Let Die didn't do so bad in the box office and that they still had hope for him as bond after Golden Gun. They might as well use him for the 1 more film he is under contract for and if TSWLM does shit at the box office then ditch him.

    Also Daltons contract expired in 1994 and Dalton chose to leave Bond.

    LALD did alot more than just "not bad". Adjusted for inflation it grossed over $671 million. Compare that to the $411 million OHMSS grossed only 4 years prior. Clearly audiences liked Moore as Bond.

    Then take into account the $721,380 mil TSWLM made and MR being the highest grossing film of 1979, it would've made no business sense to not try to get Moore to do another film. As a matter of fact, adjusted for 2014 dollars, LADL, TSWLM, and MR all outgrossed all of Brosnan's movies. While the TSWLM and MR outgrossed Craig's first two films. Say what you will about him but Moore put butts in seats during the 70s.

    Im happy Roger Moore played Bond for as along as he did. Im one of the few who loved it that it did AVTAK. Rogers run has Bond is the 1 run I wouldn't change anything about. I thought all 7 movies he did were perfect for him and the series.
  • Posts: 1,974
    Tho I loved AVTAK and loved that Moore did the film, why didn't he retire after Octopussy? It would of been a perfect way to finish Bond. Could it be that he didn't want to be seen as only coming back to beat Connery that he wanted to do 1 more and show audiences Im here for the love of the role and that the competition?
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    the lessening of jeopardy to the point where cartoon gags were commonplace, the series basically became a joke, being passed by the Lucas/Spielberg/ Scott/Cameron films as the blockbusters of the decade.

    I guess you missed the part where MR was the highest grossing film of the year.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    True, but movies such as transformers were number one their years of releases, too;) yes, people will come, if the producers make the movies;)
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    I didn't say it was the highest quality, I was responding to the notion that Moore's films weren't blockbusters. They were, and several grossed more than his beloved OHMSS.
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2015 Posts: 10,512
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Something nobody's mentioned yet is that John Glen pushed pretty heavily to get Moore back for FYEO. The reason being that Glen making his directorial debut was pressure enough. Having to establish a new James Bond on top of that would've been too much.

    fjdinardo wrote: »
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot

    Maybe because Live and Let Die didn't do so bad in the box office and that they still had hope for him as bond after Golden Gun. They might as well use him for the 1 more film he is under contract for and if TSWLM does shit at the box office then ditch him.

    Also Daltons contract expired in 1994 and Dalton chose to leave Bond.

    LALD did alot more than just "not bad". Adjusted for inflation it grossed over $671 million. Compare that to the $411 million OHMSS grossed only 4 years prior. Clearly audiences liked Moore as Bond.

    Then take into account the $721,380 mil TSWLM made and MR being the highest grossing film of 1979, it would've made no business sense to not try to get Moore to do another film. As a matter of fact, adjusted for 2014 dollars, LADL, TSWLM, and MR all outgrossed all of Brosnan's movies. While the TSWLM and MR outgrossed Craig's first two films. Say what you will about him but Moore put butts in seats during the 70s.

    Im happy Roger Moore played Bond for as along as he did. Im one of the few who loved it that it did AVTAK. Rogers run has Bond is the 1 run I wouldn't change anything about. I thought all 7 movies he did were perfect for him and the series.

    Agreed. While his tenure may not hit the highs with quite the same frequency as the early connery's, they're pretty damn consistent and every one of them is hugely entertaining to me. If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel.
  • Posts: 1,974
    RC7 wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Something nobody's mentioned yet is that John Glen pushed pretty heavily to get Moore back for FYEO. The reason being that Glen making his directorial debut was pressure enough. Having to establish a new James Bond on top of that would've been too much.

    fjdinardo wrote: »
    In retrospect, I've always been surprised Moore didn't get canned after the man with the golden gun fizzled. Dalton's second one fizzles, he doesn't get a third shot

    Maybe because Live and Let Die didn't do so bad in the box office and that they still had hope for him as bond after Golden Gun. They might as well use him for the 1 more film he is under contract for and if TSWLM does shit at the box office then ditch him.

    Also Daltons contract expired in 1994 and Dalton chose to leave Bond.

    LALD did alot more than just "not bad". Adjusted for inflation it grossed over $671 million. Compare that to the $411 million OHMSS grossed only 4 years prior. Clearly audiences liked Moore as Bond.

    Then take into account the $721,380 mil TSWLM made and MR being the highest grossing film of 1979, it would've made no business sense to not try to get Moore to do another film. As a matter of fact, adjusted for 2014 dollars, LADL, TSWLM, and MR all outgrossed all of Brosnan's movies. While the TSWLM and MR outgrossed Craig's first two films. Say what you will about him but Moore put butts in seats during the 70s.

    Im happy Roger Moore played Bond for as along as he did. Im one of the few who loved it that it did AVTAK. Rogers run has Bond is the 1 run I wouldn't change anything about. I thought all 7 movies he did were perfect for him and the series.

    Agreed. While his tenure may not hit the highs with quite the same frequency as the early connery's, they're pretty damn consistent and every one of them is hugely entertaining to me. If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel.

    Exactly. There are so many things I would change about the Connery films, Dalton, and Pierce to make them better. Moores movies I wouldn't change anything.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel.

    A good point. Even with Connery there were marked differences between the cinematic and literary Bond characters. The last few novels after the films Fleming did change the character a bit to fit the films more. But at least with the early novels there were virtually no one-liners and Bond has a lot more trepidation about his job and killing than Connery ever does. "That's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six" is not a line that would appear in Fleming.
  • Posts: 1,146

    [/quote]Im happy Roger Moore played Bond for as along as he did. Im one of the few who loved it that it did AVTAK. Rogers run has Bond is the 1 run I wouldn't change anything about. I thought all 7 movies he did were perfect for him and the series. [/quote]

    Agreed. While his tenure may not hit the highs with quite the same frequency as the early connery's, they're pretty damn consistent and every one of them is hugely entertaining to me. If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel. [/quote]

    Exactly. There are so many things I would change about the Connery films, Dalton, and Pierce to make them better. Moores movies I wouldn't change anything. [/quote]

    Yes, they were consistent, all right, consistently bad. It's the worst reviewed stretch of Bond films, and it took the series three decades to recover. He turned Bond into a comedy, a parody.

    There's things I'd change about the COnnery films. What's your point? Moore's films are still mediocre films AT BEST.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,232
    After MR they were considering other actors. But in uncertain times and with Moore still available (even if they had to renegotiate his contract every time), they wanted to bet on the actor they knew could still appeal to audiences. Especially when NSNA was going to be released, with Connery starring in it, EON feared that introducing a new Bond would be too big a leap into the unknown. Asking Moore back made perfect sense.

    I got nothing on AVTAK though. Perhaps it's a sign of a lack of faith in the film that they preferred to keep Moore as an asset. Perhaps they run out of time and auditioning other actors wasn't going as fast as it should. I don't know. It's a troubled film and I would have preferred OP to be Moore's swansong.
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    For a second I thought @doubleohdad had hit his head and stopped being such a negative nancy. Nope, he just forgot how to use the quote function.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Sark wrote: »
    If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel.

    A good point. Even with Connery there were marked differences between the cinematic and literary Bond characters. The last few novels after the films Fleming did change the character a bit to fit the films more. But at least with the early novels there were virtually no one-liners and Bond has a lot more trepidation about his job and killing than Connery ever does. "That's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six" is not a line that would appear in Fleming.

    Wait a minute, that 'you've had you six' is a really cool line. One of the best in the series. Does Moore have any cool moments using his license to kill?

    Oh wait, flipping Jaws out the window like he did to Tee Hee, that's right.
Sign In or Register to comment.