Roger Moore as James Bond, 1962-1985

edited August 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 4,813
http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;3:>nu=3246>9<3>:8:>WSNRCG=34;7939288325nu0mrj <-- lol :-))



Just like my other thread about Sean Connery sticking around throughout Roger Moore's era until 1985,

http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/563/sean-connery-as-james-bond-1962-1985/p1

....this thread is exactly the opposite. What if Roger Moore started as Bond in 1962 and remained until 1985?

Obviously, everyone loves Sean Connery and this is just for fun. I can't help but think however, that Roger would have been much more well received had he done at least a couple Bond films when he was 'young'

IMO, some aspects of the 70's have a bit of a tackiness about them (mostly men's fashion) and I feel Rog would have been great as the classy 60's Bond. Another thing I keep in mind is that Roger didn't 'start' the cheesy, funny Bond trend (DAF did), he just excelled in it. So technically if Roger played Bond in the 60's, he would have been just as serious as Connery.
Here's how I suspect it would have gone down:


DN- Pretending he wasn't tied down with 'The Saint', Roger could have used his star power to give James Bond an even bigger jump start- and to see him perform the brutal killing of Prof. Dent would have been something special. Plus Roger would be only 35 and while people tend to poke fun at his fisticuffs in his real Bond films, we all know he kicked major ass in The Saint. This version of Roger Moore's Bond would be very dangerous I think!

FRWL- We've seen how dirty it looks when Roger slaps a woman, and this would not be much different. The situation was different, sure, but, I dunno about his one. On the other hand, Moore's boyish looks would have played a bigger part in Tatania's 'crush on a photo of him' plotpoint. His Bond vs Grant however wouldn't have been nearly as impressive.

GF- Roger Moore in an Aston Martin. NERD-GASM!!!! J/K :D But seriously, this would have been AWESOME. I'm picturing him with the duck-helmet in the PTS and laughing as I type. The ladies man that he is, he'd have likely squeezed in a lovemaking session with Tilly, lol
This movie would have been a ton of fun with Moore

TB- The jetpack would be right up his alley- and you know he would have charmed the heck out of Domino. I'd have loved to see him tell off Fiona- 'you don't actually think it gave me any pleasure, do you?' lol so unlike Roger! And the slew of one-liners would have had his own special charm ('I think he got the point'; 'YOU'RE glad...', etc). The one bad thing about it: picturing Roger Moore in that red scuba shirt and SHORT shorts... ugh...

YOLT- I'm not so sure how this one would have turned out... assuming he was young enough to believably pull off the Ninja stuff (because his martial arts abilities were embarrassing in TMWTGG...) Roger may have been much better than Connery in this case. We would have gotten a tease of Roger Moore going into space (to be fulfilled in MR) and it would have been interesting to see Roger face off against Blofeld without it being a 'joke'

OHMSS- The love story aspect would have been much better in this one I think- and seeing poor Roger at the end would have likely brought a tear to my eye. Most people wish Connery had done this movie, but I dunno... I think it may have been better with Moore.

DAF- I had touched on this briefly in my other thread 'Could Roger Moore have done DAF or TLD' and I truly believe that if we didn't have Lazenby, Moore would have fit the bill for sure. Plus just picture how cool it would have been seeing Sir Rog in a REVENGE flick- which it certainly would have been had he done OHMSS.

Like I had mentioned above, I love Connery in the role- make no mistake, but I'd love to hear your ideas as to how it 'could have' gone with Moore

Comments

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited August 2011 Posts: 15,690
    Roger Moore being the only Bond in the franchise ? Absolutly !! He would have been great in FRWL and TB in a more serious approach.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    http://images1.snapfish.com/232323232fp;3:>nu=3246>9<3>:8:>WSNRCG=34;7939288325nu0mrj <-- lol :-)) </p>
    Good work, M_D!

    Here's one I found:

    http://www.bondmovies.com/news/images/rogerfrwl.gif

    As for the main topic, I'm glad we had both Sean, Roger and even George when we did. I think if one actor had stayed in the role 1962-1985, I wonder if the series would've lasted as long. The actor changeups helped to keep things interesting.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Connery is the only man who could have given DN,FRWL,GF and TB that brutal fervor. He made the films classic with his cool manner and cold demeanor. Moore couldn't have done that in my opinion, and I believe he would have acted the same in the 60s as he did in 71 to 85. It's good Connery was there to take the first run at it, or I wouldn't be a Bond fan right now. I do agree with the concept of having the same actor from OHMSS to DAF. That has always irked me because DAF could have really been a cold revenge film with Bond losing any sense of law in getting payback for Tracey's death. Ah well. Past is past and we just have to be happy with what we got, even though the road got bumpy. ;-)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 13,350
    It would of course have been overkill but I would have loved to see what it would be like with Moore from the beginning. I think he could surprise people as I think he is capable of doing some of the 'tougher' film justice.
  • edited August 2011 Posts: 4,813


    http://www.bondmovies.com/news/images/rogerfrwl.gif
    .

    AWESOME! I wonder if there are more out there
  • As much as I really don't like Moore's version of Bond it's interesting to think of him starting earlier. I agree that a younger, more youthful Moore would have been cool and I'm sure Terence Young would have started him off in a fairly serious performance. But he just didn't have the powerful presence or machismo that Connery had and although Moore in DN in '62 would likely have been far better than older Moore in the later films...he just wouldn't have been as good as Connery.

    However, I think that starting him off on OHMSS would have been interesting...I had honestly never thought of that before. Would he have worked well in a more serious performance, would the box office have been better, and would we have gotten a more serious - or at least less campy - series of Moore films? Intriguing thoughts...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I shudder at this thought. It is bad enough that he actually got the role from '73 - '85. It'd be even worse if he started in '62. Though in a way, that did happen with The Saint / The Persuaders / Bond, to me, they're all the same character that Moore played.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Well he was Fleming's choice over Connery in the first place so it would have been interesting to see,but i'm quite happy with the way the series has panned out so far,with the exception of DAF which should have been a Lazenby vehicle and stuck to the book plot.
  • Monsieur_AubergineMonsieur_Aubergine Top of the Eiffel Tower with a fly in my soup!
    Posts: 642
    The Moore I think about this, the Moore I like it!! Seriously, what a legacy that would have been for the man and the series.
    I am talking hypothetically and not suggesting it should replace all that has gone before but it is entirely right to suggest that his more 'independant' outings as Simon Templar really offer up the perhaps REAL Roger Moore that could have been utilised so well as suggested in this thread, a very thought provoking angle on the franchise. love it. :-)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,536
    As much as I love Roger Moore, I would never trade in Sean Connery, not even for the likes of Cary Grant, James Mason, Oliver Reed or John Gavin!

    I don't object to fantasising about Moore doing 14 films in a row, in fact I'd love to do a bit of that myself. I also turn the fantasy upside down: what if Connery had stayed on till '85? I will say this: I think a 14 Moore film era would have worked better than a 14 Connery film era. I like Connery in NSNA but then I'm prone to certain nostalgic sentiments. Connery, IMO, is more a 60s Bond. Moore could have perhaps presented a far more consistent Bond for two and a half decades. But then still, no way I'd give up the 60s Connery!
  • Posts: 4,813
    I also turn the fantasy upside down: what if Connery had stayed on till '85?
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/563/sean-connery-as-james-bond-1962-1985/p1

    You should give this thread a look! You may like it!
  • wintandkiddfaroutwintandkiddfarout Australia
    edited September 2020 Posts: 32
    @Master_Dahark
    I heard Roger was one of the candidates for Bond's role in the very beginning when casting Dr. No. So who knows? This run of 14 films at least could or could not have been a genuine possibility.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    I mean, I love Moore, he's my favourite Bond, but it's a tough call to trade in Connery.
    I certainly think Moore could have done the early Bond films justice. He was, after all, excellent in FYEO which has a lot of kinship with the likes of FRWL.

    Still not sure he could have topped Sean, he was truly fantastic.

    I'm with the OP on OHMSS, though. Roger would have been fantastic in that one, maybe even potentially better than Sean, and it would have been bookended perfectly with the opening of FYEO...
Sign In or Register to comment.