›

what if............ roger moore was the first bond, or sean connery had stayed on

thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
edited September 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 12,837
what if it was moore who had been cast in doctor no and carried on from there. lets take a look

1: bond would be english. Flemming would have most likely NOT created bonds half scottish-half swiss heritage

2: moore would be classed as the best bond. lets face it, he would. lets say he did every film from doctor no to a view to a kill. People would crucify anyone who dared try take his place.

3: some awesome films would be worse. while all moores flicks would have been the same, for all we know moore could have ruined goldfinger or from russia with love. As awesome as sir roger was, i dread to think of him in OHMSS. although lasenby wasnt the greatest actor either. i think moore may have been better actually.)

now what if........... sean connery had continued to play bond until, lets say moonraker. Connery is actually younger than moore, so if he had stayed on that long and maybe longer i cant see many complaining. anyway, lets take a look.

1: moore wouldnt have been bond. would eon have hired moore in his fifties. i doubt it. im guessing that means dalton would have taken over.

2: OHMSS would have been the best bond film. well, apart from anything with dalton in.

3: people would have liked moonraker better. face it, if seany had weaved his magic the space thriller would have been alot less despised.

Comments

  • SirCLMDBCRaigSirCLMDBCRaig
    edited September 2011 Posts: 205
    Agreed about the first 3. Not so much the next 3 tho..The problem with Connery staying for much longer is that he already gave up with YOLT. Say what you must about Moore staying on for too long but at least he never stopped trying and was always fun to watch. Connery couldn't care less by the time he reached YOLT and barely sleepwalked his way through YOLT and DAF.

    Now if we're talking about the Connery from DN to TB, then that's another story..

    Also Moore is the least of Moonrakers problems. I'd even say he's the best part of it and i honestly cannot see Connery having as much fun with it as he did.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agreed about the first 3. Not so much the next 3 tho..The problem with Connery staying for much longer is that he already gave up with YOLT. Say what you must about Moore staying on for too long but at least he never stopped trying and was always fun to watch. Connery couldn't care less by the time he reached YOLT and barely sleepwalked his way through YOLT and DAF.

    Now if we're talking about the Connery from DN to TB, then that's another story..

    Also Moore is the least of Moonrakers problems. I'd even say he's the best part of it and i honestly cannot see Connery having as much fun with it as he did.
    i know but what if connery DIDN'T get tired of the role, thats the point of the thread, its what if. I know moore was the least of moonrakers problems, i always enjoyed moore but lets face it, connery was the better actor so if connery was in moonraker at the performance level he was in dr no or goldfinger then i think it would've been alot better recieved by most fans today.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    I watched YOLT recently and saw no difference at all in Connery's performance than in earlier films. I saw more sequences where he has to stand around doing nothing or walking down streets, but if you watch the sequence say from meeting Henderson through to running out of the Osato building. I mean really watch Connery and tell me where he looks bored, or where he isn't anything short of giving it his all.

    This 'Connery looked bored' argument sprang up from nowhere a few years ago and has been latched on to by everyone.

    YOLT is simply a film more reliant on action than previously, and the pace of it probably doesn't suit Connery's style as much as the slower paced TB and GF. It has no barings on Connery's performance which is as magnificent as ever.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I watched YOLT recently and saw no difference at all in Connery's performance than in earlier films. I saw more sequences where he has to stand around doing nothing or walking down streets, but if you watch the sequence say from meeting Henderson through to running out of the Osato building. I mean really watch Connery and tell me where he looks bored, or where he isn't anything short of giving it his all.

    This 'Connery looked bored' argument sprang up from nowhere a few years ago and has been latched on to by everyone.

    YOLT is simply a film more reliant on action than previously, and the pace of it probably doesn't suit Connery's style as much as the slower paced TB and GF. It has no barings on Connery's performance which is as magnificent as ever.
    Thank you Nackers. I thought I was the only one who didn't think Connery was bored in YOLT.

    As for Moore, it's bad enough he was cast to begin with, and stayed from 1973 - 1985, but I don't even want to think about him staying from 1962 - 1985.

  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Interesting suppositions. I would love to see Moore in more Bond films. He would be an even bigger Titan in the franchise than he already is. But then we wouldn't have him in The Saint or The Persauders where he was excellent. Fun to think about that alternate reality, though.
  • bondbat007bondbat007
    Posts: 1,407
    Very interesting "what if". Yes i think Moore would of been considered the best because he was the first. Now i do not think that is why Connery is the best (he just is) but I'm sure thats what some others think. And if Connery had been in OHMSS...it would of been considered the best Bond film ever. Although it's near perfection now, the public would see it better with Sean. I'm thinking back to a news report on the DAD world premiere and there was something like "there have been the hits (cuts to FRWL), and the misses (cuts to OHMSS)" And yes i think he was fine (not perfect) in YOLT and with such a solid script and good direction in OHMSS, he would of been perfect.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    I guess this would have happened...

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/563/sean-connery-as-james-bond-1962-1985/p2#Item_57

    or.....
    This would have happened...

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/1294/roger-moore-as-james-bond-1962-1985#Item_12

    :p ;-)
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Are you suggesting someone is duplicating thread ideas @Master_Dahark? ;-)
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    I really can't see why Moore would have been bad in OHMSS, people seem to love this film even with a leading man who has no screen presence, please don't see this as me slagging off Lazenby but cleary he wasn't and actor and was cast in the Bond film that required the most acting. He handled himself pretty well considering, only the Sir Hilary bit makes me cringe.

    I know I am probably in the minority here but I think some of the best dramatic acting in the series is provided by Moore, such as the dinner scene with Scaramanga, the scenes with XXX talking about his wifes death and regarding the killing of her lover and also most of the scenes with Melina in For Your Eyes Only.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I watched YOLT recently and saw no difference at all in Connery's performance than in earlier films. I saw more sequences where he has to stand around doing nothing or walking down streets, but if you watch the sequence say from meeting Henderson through to running out of the Osato building. I mean really watch Connery and tell me where he looks bored, or where he isn't anything short of giving it his all.

    This 'Connery looked bored' argument sprang up from nowhere a few years ago and has been latched on to by everyone.

    YOLT is simply a film more reliant on action than previously, and the pace of it probably doesn't suit Connery's style as much as the slower paced TB and GF. It has no barings on Connery's performance which is as magnificent as ever.
    I agree vehemently with this.

    I have often argued and failed to see Sean's so called boredom in any of the Bond films, hell in DAF he looks like he's having the time of his life.

    Also, I disagree with the idea that Roger Moor would have been regarded as the best Bond had he been the first actor, it discredits the effort and hard work Connery put into the role in which he made it look easy. Connery and Moor are 2 very different actors and Moor in no way shape or form has that rugged, animalistic charm that Connery has and brought to the role.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,571
    Well, I think I would go with @doubleoego's assessment, and not just because he agreed with my asessment of Connery in YOLT :-D .

    I do like Roger Moore's Bond, (although it went on too long) but Connery's rugged, brutal charm was a breath of fresh air in the early 60s. Indeed one critic suggested his Bond was no different to the villains. The good, honest heroes of Cary Grant, Gregory Peck and James Stewart were old hat. Moore would have been too much of that ilk.

    Dr No would have made money with Moore, but Connery made Bond the man we know and love. By the time Moroe came along Bond was established box office.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813

    Here's my two cents, as it's fun to think about 'what if'.

    The main reason I'm so curious to see Moore in place of Connery is because of his age. Connery and Moore were born just a couple years apart so it's easy to see ONE of them doing all the films from 1962-1985. With what we got, it's almost like Connery is young Bond, and Moore is OLD Bond- while I love Connery, it's a shame we never got to see Moore play 'young' Bond, you know?

    This is also why lots of people regard TLD as the first 'reboot', because it's like 'ok, this CAN'T be the same version of the character because it's 1987 now and he's young again'. In the Connery/Moore movies, Bond aged naturally throughout the whole time (and I know I'm excluding OHMSS just for this discussion)

    Wrap THIS around your head though: WHAT IF Bond was so popular in the 60's that not only did we have a movie series.... we also got a television series running AT THE SAME TIME!!! I always thought that when the chips were down, James Bond would potentially make a great TV series. This way we could have Connery do the movies, and have Moore do the show- in place of him doing the Saint. Of course I'm REALLY dreaming here, lol
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2011 Posts: 15,690
    The problem with Connery or Moore playing the role from 1962 to 1985 is that once they quit the role, the franchise is over. There is absolutly no way Bond could be recast Bond after 23 years and 14 movies with the same actor. The role would be so synonymous to the actor (Connery or Moore), that no-one would want, or even think about recasting the role after 23 years.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I watched YOLT recently and saw no difference at all in Connery's performance than in earlier films. I saw more sequences where he has to stand around doing nothing or walking down streets, but if you watch the sequence say from meeting Henderson through to running out of the Osato building. I mean really watch Connery and tell me where he looks bored, or where he isn't anything short of giving it his all.

    This 'Connery looked bored' argument sprang up from nowhere a few years ago and has been latched on to by everyone.

    YOLT is simply a film more reliant on action than previously, and the pace of it probably doesn't suit Connery's style as much as the slower paced TB and GF. It has no barings on Connery's performance which is as magnificent as ever.
    I agree with this.I also have deliberately even watched YOLT to see where Connery's 'boredom ' comes in and havent seen anything different from the earlier films apart from he looks heavier.

    And,although DAF if #22 on my list for me Connery still doesnt look like he slept through the film to be fair.

  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    I may unfairly be on the boredom bandwagon due to having not seen the movie recently....

    I will will watch YOLT today and get back to you :)

    I certainly remember him being bored looking.....
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    i dont think connery looks bored in YOLT but in reality he was bored of playing the character.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497

    now what if........... sean connery had continued to play bond until, lets say moonraker. Connery is actually younger than moore, so if he had stayed on that long and maybe longer i cant see many complaining. anyway, lets take a look.

    2: OHMSS would have been the best bond film. well, apart from anything with dalton in.
    It already is! ;-)

    3: people would have liked moonraker better. face it, if seany had weaved his magic the space thriller would have been alot less despised.
    I think MR would have been far worse. Let's assume that the Bond films continued into the camp direction they began with DAF. We would continue to see a fatter, greyer, older Connery further going down the unflattering road of self parody, in films that degenerated further into buffoonery. It would be like Fat Elvis in Vegas by this point. It would have just been terrible.

  • SirCLMDBCRaigSirCLMDBCRaig
    edited September 2011 Posts: 205
    Agreed with JBFan626. Also, I saw YOLT before I even knew this forum existed or that "Connery is sleepwalking" was widely accepted and still thought that Connery was bored out of his mind in YOLT. At first I thought it was just me, maybe I was in a bad mood and not feeling it? But every time I watch it I see the same thing - Connery just going through the motions uninterested. It was an improvement in DAF but still not up to the DN-TB standard.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    It already is! ;-)
    no it isnt. OHMSS did not have a LICENCE TO KILL, and lasenby was ok but the new blofeld did not look like a bad ass baddy that could knock THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of bond. :P
  • SirCLMDBCRaigSirCLMDBCRaig
    edited September 2011 Posts: 205
    It already is! ;-)
    no it isnt. OHMSS did not have a LICENCE TO KILL, and lasenby was ok but the new blofeld did not look like a bad ass baddy that could knock THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of bond. :P
    I detect strange signals coming from your post. It's almost as if they are trying to convey a hidden message of some sort. I've scanned and scanned the post but my super advanced hardware geeps jamming. Maybe it's just me..yeah..yeah..must be just me. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a sudden urge to watch TLD.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Moore would have played the part straight had he been the original Bond. None of his cute comedic one liners in DN thur DAF.
    Would have liked to see Connery stick around thru LALD then he could have passed the mantle to Moore...
Sign In or Register to comment.