How much did Moore influence the direction of his movies?

in Actors Posts: 292
Did Moore encourage writers/directors to go in this direction? (i.e. low iq writing, derivative plots, lack of depth in female characters)

With Brosnan, it seemed like he was a prisoner to bad scripts. He got in thinking he'd make movies like Goldeneye, but then got baited and switched with the other 3 absurd scripts.

But with Moore... it seemed like he was in on this and totally content with it?

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol The Crazy World of David Dragonpol
    edited October 14 Posts: 14,735
    I think it was more the collective creative decision of the producers, directors and writers who elected to go in that direction in the new decade of the 1970s. For proof of this, just look at the template laid down in Sean Connery's last Eon Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever (1971). To my mind that film, and not Roger Moore specifically, set the tone for the rest of the Bond films of the 1970s.

    Of course I'm sure Moore had creative input into his films too and is on record as having spoken out when he felt his version of Bond was acting out of character (such as the Locque clifftop scene in FYEO). He also ad libbed lines on occasions and they took multiple takes using different oneliners to see which one best fitted the scene and the general tone of the film. I suppose you could say it's a chicken and egg thing but that this was clearly the lighter more self-parodical direction they had already decided to go in from 1970 onwards before Moore even came on the scene.
  • edited October 14 Posts: 12,397
    I think it might have varied from film to film, with Moore having more input in the more Connery esque scripts, to turn them into his usual style? That’s just me guessing, based off an interview with Richard Maibuam, where he talks about how he prefers Connery due to not being a fan of the self-spoofing aspects of the Moore era. He didn’t like the one liners Moore would adlib in, and thought that tone undermined his efforts to get back to a grounded, FRWL sort of film with FYEO. But on the other hand, there’s writers like Christopher Wood, who specifically tried to move Moore away from Connery.

    So, it seems to me that Moore and Cubby had an idea of where they wanted to go, but while some writers were onboard, some weren’t, hence the ad libs? That’s just a guess based off those interviews. But Moore definitely seems more content than Brosnan, and seems to have had more input (the only suggestions I’ve ever heard of Brosnan making were shot down, like casting Monica Belluci as Paris).
  • Antster007Antster007 Somewhere, keeping the British end up
    Posts: 16
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I think it was more the collective creative decision of the producers, directors and writers who elected to go in that direction in the new decade of the 1970s. For proof of this, just look at the template laid down in Sean Connery's last Eon Bond film, Diamonds Are Forever (1971). To my mind that film, and not Roger Moore specifically, set the tone for the rest of the Bond films of the 1970s.

    As you say, the direction of the films and character was changing with the times. Sir Roger was the right man for that era and that style.

  • Posts: 292
    I agree with the chicken-and-egg. Moore didn't start it but the writers/directors saw that Moore was apt for it and pushed him more and more in that direction.

  • Posts: 2,302
    I think it might have varied from film to film, with Moore having more input in the more Connery esque scripts, to turn them into his usual style? That’s just me guessing, based off an interview with Richard Maibuam, where he talks about how he prefers Connery due to not being a fan of the self-spoofing aspects of the Moore era. He didn’t like the one liners Moore would adlib in, and thought that tone undermined his efforts to get back to a grounded, FRWL sort of film with FYEO.

    Here are some quotes from the interview:

    "Roger Moore looks better in this film [OP], somehow, than he’s looked in any of the others. My only objection is that he fools around with the lines. He fancies himself a great wit.”

    “My lines are ‘Red wine with fish. That should have told me something’ and ‘She had her kicks’ [both from From Russia with Love], Those are my lines, the ones I claim and enjoy writing. Some of the stuff I think is awful, like, ‘Something big is coming between us.’ Roger insists on making some script changes. He’s very proud of them and tells everybody. And some of his ‘improvements’ are just awful."
  • BennyBenny ...OctobennyAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 11,946
    Revelator wrote: »
    I think it might have varied from film to film, with Moore having more input in the more Connery esque scripts, to turn them into his usual style? That’s just me guessing, based off an interview with Richard Maibuam, where he talks about how he prefers Connery due to not being a fan of the self-spoofing aspects of the Moore era. He didn’t like the one liners Moore would adlib in, and thought that tone undermined his efforts to get back to a grounded, FRWL sort of film with FYEO.

    Here are some quotes from the interview:

    "Roger Moore looks better in this film [OP], somehow, than he’s looked in any of the others. My only objection is that he fools around with the lines. He fancies himself a great wit.”

    “My lines are ‘Red wine with fish. That should have told me something’ and ‘She had her kicks’ [both from From Russia with Love], Those are my lines, the ones I claim and enjoy writing. Some of the stuff I think is awful, like, ‘Something big is coming between us.’ Roger insists on making some script changes. He’s very proud of them and tells everybody. And some of his ‘improvements’ are just awful."

    It seems pretty clear from the Maibaum interview, that he wasn't a fan of Rogers Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.