Where does Bond go after Craig?

1169170172174175513

Comments

  • DB5MNDB5MN USA
    Posts: 47
    to me spectre was the end of 007, i dont even tried yet to watch NTTD. only the car chase at the opening. but i wonder if we ever see a new actor playing 007...like, already tom cruise is filming the last missions movies, and vin diesel fast x in portugal, yet 007 dont have even a actor...

    Yeah can totally understand the way you feel I thought the driving off in the sunset in Spectre was a good way to end his bond. I don't know what they will do but they should take a page out of top gun maverick make Bond thrilling and make the audience think how does he get out of this one and surprise the audience like they used to do.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    Best ending for Craig's Bond was at the end of Spectre when he and Madeleine drove off into the morning sun of London. Should've just left it there.

    By the way, it was sunrise and not sunset. It was in the morning. ;)
  • DB5MNDB5MN USA
    Posts: 47
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Best ending for Craig's Bond was at the end of Spectre when he and Madeleine drove off into the morning sun of London. Should've just left it there.

    By the way, it was sunrise and not sunset. It was in the morning. ;)

    Ah ok
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Would be interesting to see what they mean by "reinventing" Bond. But didn't we get a reinvented Bond with Casino Royale? Or was that a reboot? What a mess for the future of Bond. Shouldn't have killed him off.

    Bond had always been reinvented with a new actor. We saw that from Connery to Moore. Moore to Dalton. Dalton to Brosnan. And Brosnan to Craig. I think some folks are just being reactionary by jumping to conclusions on how they interpret the word.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2022 Posts: 3,382
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Would be interesting to see what they mean by "reinventing" Bond. But didn't we get a reinvented Bond with Casino Royale? Or was that a reboot? What a mess for the future of Bond. Shouldn't have killed him off.

    Bond had always been reinvented with a new actor. We saw that from Connery to Moore. Moore to Dalton. Dalton to Brosnan. And Brosnan to Craig. I think some folks are just being reactionary by jumping to conclusions on how they interpret the word.

    EON has been reinventing the character since Lazenby stepped on the role.
    I think the reinvention would likely to depends on what's the current public demand:
    Example: EON hired Brosnan because the public wanted a 90's action hero, then EON ditched Brosnan for Craig because the public wanted a gritty, serious action hero.
    So it depends on the current trend.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I think even if Connery returned for OHMSS in 1969, Peter Hunt would have still veered towards what he ultimately made because he wanted to be true to the novel. It would have been seen as Connery Bond going back to Fleming roots, much like how people look at FYEO with Roger Moore.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2022 Posts: 3,382
    I think even if Connery returned for OHMSS in 1969, Peter Hunt would have still veered towards what he ultimately made because he wanted to be true to the novel. It would have been seen as Connery Bond going back to Fleming roots, much like how people look at FYEO with Roger Moore.

    I've edited my message, it's just my first draft. 😅 But yes, I though understand.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    edited June 2022 Posts: 972
    If the "reinventing" is by bringing Bond back with a new actor without rebooting the whole thing again just like how it was before during the Connery to Brosnan days, then I welcome that. But the continuity where we last saw Bond clearly getting blown up and with the nanobots inside him would need to be explained. Or are they gonna just forget all that happened...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    to me spectre was the end of 007, i dont even tried yet to watch NTTD. only the car chase at the opening. but i wonder if we ever see a new actor playing 007...like, already tom cruise is filming the last missions movies, and vin diesel fast x in portugal, yet 007 dont have even a actor...

    I don't get this negativity. Why so dramatic? Two years ago people were SURE that NTTD would NEVER be released. I find such hysterical outbursts somewhat worrying.
  • Posts: 3,275
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.

    Wasn't FYEO marked for a new actor too, hence the change in direction? Moore was still able to fit in perfectly, even though there was a change in direction with this film.

    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 890
    Beside the "reinventing" part, which can mean everything, I'm quite happily surprised to read that Broccoli is speaking about starting production in 2024. If they stick to this schedule, it means Bond 26 could be released in 2025 (probably at the end of the year I guess). So a relatively respectable and short gap between the Craig era and the next one.
    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).
    As far as we know, TLD was never written for Moore but for a generic actor (Brosnan, Neill, whatsoever). Moore was already out for a longtime since, in the between, the prequel/reboot option with a younger Bond was pitched.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 14,861
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.

    Wasn't FYEO marked for a new actor too, hence the change in direction? Moore was still able to fit in perfectly, even though there was a change in direction with this film.

    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).

    Yeah I tend to think that, slightly counter intuitively, Roger is possibly the most versatile of the Bond actors! There's none of them he couldn't have done, even though a few wouldn't have suited him as much. Is "Compliments of Sharkey" such a big leap from "Killing Tibbett was a mistake"? Maybe Casino Royale is a leap too far for him, I find that a trickier thought experiment than LTK (although it would have been pretty straightforward to adapt the book of CR into a different script for Roger's strengths).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    mtm wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.

    Wasn't FYEO marked for a new actor too, hence the change in direction? Moore was still able to fit in perfectly, even though there was a change in direction with this film.

    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).

    Yeah I tend to think that, slightly counter intuitively, Roger is possibly the most versatile of the Bond actors! There's none of them he couldn't have done, even though a few wouldn't have suited him as much. Is "Compliments of Sharkey" such a big leap from "Killing Tibbett was a mistake"? Maybe Casino Royale is a leap too far for him, I find that a trickier thought experiment than LTK (although it would have been pretty straightforward to adapt the book of CR into a different script for Roger's strengths).

    Roger could've made most scripts work in my opinion. I sometimes try to picture him in OHMSS in '69. Given his already more or less established popularity, the film might have drawn in an audience big enough to please even UA. Who knows, they could've built the Roger Moore era on that, rather than on semi-spoofs and fantasy trips. Roger could have handled the material with ease.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Yeah absolutely, I'm always banging on about how much better OHMSS would have been with Roger starring. It's kind of perfect for him.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    Roger could've made most scripts work in my opinion. I sometimes try to picture him in OHMSS in '69. Given his already more or less established popularity, the film might have drawn in an audience big enough to please even UA. Who knows, they could've built the Roger Moore era on that, rather than on semi-spoofs and fantasy trips. Roger could have handled the material with ease.
    It could definitely have worked, even though I don't think I would like to see anybody but Lazenby in OHMSS. A younger Moore would have great for more serious entries; this is why I've always been curious about the fact that Broccoli and Saltzman discussed the possibility of a TMWTGG with Moore in '69.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 2022 Posts: 8,000
    imranbecks wrote: »
    If the "reinventing" is by bringing Bond back with a new actor without rebooting the whole thing again just like how it was before during the Connery to Brosnan days, then I welcome that. But the continuity where we last saw Bond clearly getting blown up and with the nanobots inside him would need to be explained. Or are they gonna just forget all that happened...

    They’re gonna reboot. My guess is they’ll just introduce the new Bond mid-career much like how Connery was in DN.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    Roger doing the Saint-style playboy casino bit, the romance, the comedy stuff with Sir Hillary surrounded by girls, being able to match Savalas and Rigg charisma-wise... I do actually see it as a missed opportunity. Apart from the fights I think it just would have been plain better.

    But then I guess we wouldn't have got Connery back for DAF, and I'm sure everyone likes having him in that. And maybe the combo of a non-Connery-style Bond in a non-Connery-style film may have been too much of a shock for audiences, or maybe Roger's warm screen presence may have guided them through it, it's hard to say.
  • Posts: 2,753
    mtm wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.

    Wasn't FYEO marked for a new actor too, hence the change in direction? Moore was still able to fit in perfectly, even though there was a change in direction with this film.

    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).

    Yeah I tend to think that, slightly counter intuitively, Roger is possibly the most versatile of the Bond actors! There's none of them he couldn't have done, even though a few wouldn't have suited him as much. Is "Compliments of Sharkey" such a big leap from "Killing Tibbett was a mistake"? Maybe Casino Royale is a leap too far for him, I find that a trickier thought experiment than LTK (although it would have been pretty straightforward to adapt the book of CR into a different script for Roger's strengths).

    Moore was actually a very strong actor, you can see it throughout his films as Bond. It's a shame he was prone to as much self-deprecation as he was and was arguably typecast in a way Connery managed to consciously break out of.
  • Posts: 372
    They are going to reinvent it like the Spider-Man series Tom Holland style.
    The next Bond will be young and be Timothée Chalamet.
    The script will be about opening parallel worlds and Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig will cameo.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,342
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.

    Wasn't FYEO marked for a new actor too, hence the change in direction? Moore was still able to fit in perfectly, even though there was a change in direction with this film.

    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).

    Yeah I tend to think that, slightly counter intuitively, Roger is possibly the most versatile of the Bond actors! There's none of them he couldn't have done, even though a few wouldn't have suited him as much. Is "Compliments of Sharkey" such a big leap from "Killing Tibbett was a mistake"? Maybe Casino Royale is a leap too far for him, I find that a trickier thought experiment than LTK (although it would have been pretty straightforward to adapt the book of CR into a different script for Roger's strengths).

    Moore was actually a very strong actor, you can see it throughout his films as Bond. It's a shame he was prone to as much self-deprecation as he was and was arguably typecast in a way Connery managed to consciously break out of.

    Typical Roger 😊
    FWcwDp-XoAAMDJt?format=jpg&name=large
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,861
    I love that photo; it's something about the film stock I think, but it makes him look like he's been varnished :D
  • mtm wrote: »
    Roger doing the Saint-style playboy casino bit, the romance, the comedy stuff with Sir Hillary surrounded by girls, being able to match Savalas and Rigg charisma-wise... I do actually see it as a missed opportunity. Apart from the fights I think it just would have been plain better.
    I agree with you. It's just I like the fact that Lazenby's only movie was OHMSS. It gives a lovely specificity to this movie and set it apart from the rest of the series. But, on paper, a younger Moore would definitively have nailed it and would been great.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2022 Posts: 2,898
    Craig's left the series in a great place, both critically and commercially, but quite a few people here said that there were relatively few young people in the audience when they saw NTTD. That suggests that B26 is going to have to not only satisfy existing fans, but go hard to win over a lot of new, young fans too - people who'll see NewBond as their Bond and carry the series forward for the next decade or so. Don't know how that will play out in practice, but I can see why EON want to take their time to ensure that they've got all the right elements in place. There's a lot at stake this time around.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 2022 Posts: 7,891
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Funny, I hear so much by Lazenby fans saying his take was so different from Connery that Connery wouldn’t work in OHMSS.

    I don’t agree with that point, but I do subscribe the thought that not every Bond actor can easily be slotted into someone else’s. The most extreme example I can think of is trying to imagine Roger Moore’s Bond working in LTK. To me they’re incompatible.

    Funnily enough I was thinking about that recently, and the weird thing is, I actually don't find it too hard to imagine! 😄 Certainly he'd slot into the PTS no trouble at all ("Felix, relax", "Friends of yours perhaps?", "Well, if I, er, don't get you back for the wedding, I'm a dead man, certainly!"; "I always said we should go fishing, Felix!") ; I think at the wedding party he might have been less of a terrible grump and brought out the charm, so you might even have got a feel for why Bond and Felix are supposed to be friends, unlike in the finished film! "Well, er.. I'll do anything for a woman with a knife, that's for sure"

    He’d also have plenty of chemistry with Hedison’s Felix (his Felix): you’d actually believe they were friends, which would actually be an improvement on the Dalton version.

    I know it's a bit of a joke, and the thought is that he'd have had to make quips at every point, but the more I think of it the more I think he'd have actually managed it fine, and I can't think of a scene he'd really struggle with in it. Even if you watch AVTAK, one of the things which I was quite surprised is that Roger is mostly playing it quite straight, and by the time the film has moved to San Francisco there is a bit more grit there, and he's playing Bond as absolutely despising Zorin, which I don't think he'd really done with any of his villains before. When he's blown he's actually sarcastic with Zorin and spits his lines at him. Tone-wise the end of that film is not a million miles from LTK at times, and certainly feels like the same director.

    Agreed, also the version of Moore's Bond in FYEO was also not that hard to imagine being in LTK.

    Wasn't FYEO marked for a new actor too, hence the change in direction? Moore was still able to fit in perfectly, even though there was a change in direction with this film.

    The same with TLD, which was originally written for Moore. Dalton managed to slot into this one too (although his performance is much better in LTK, as this was written around Dalton's strengths).

    Yeah I tend to think that, slightly counter intuitively, Roger is possibly the most versatile of the Bond actors! There's none of them he couldn't have done, even though a few wouldn't have suited him as much. Is "Compliments of Sharkey" such a big leap from "Killing Tibbett was a mistake"? Maybe Casino Royale is a leap too far for him, I find that a trickier thought experiment than LTK (although it would have been pretty straightforward to adapt the book of CR into a different script for Roger's strengths).

    Moore was actually a very strong actor, you can see it throughout his films as Bond. It's a shame he was prone to as much self-deprecation as he was and was arguably typecast in a way Connery managed to consciously break out of.

    Exactly. which is why a strong director, who can rein an actor’s personal tendencies and “ticks” , is needed
    When an actor is in a role for too long they often stop being the character and start playing themselves; I see this in spades with Daniel’s performance in NTTD.

    With that said, a young Roger would have been awesome for OHMSS.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited June 2022 Posts: 7,891
    He is spot on …

    Actually, good point all around.

  • edited June 2022 Posts: 1,395
    Also good points from Mr Dyson:
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,382
    mtm wrote: »
    Roger doing the Saint-style playboy casino bit, the romance, the comedy stuff with Sir Hillary surrounded by girls, being able to match Savalas and Rigg charisma-wise... I do actually see it as a missed opportunity. Apart from the fights I think it just would have been plain better.
    I agree with you. It's just I like the fact that Lazenby's only movie was OHMSS. It gives a lovely specificity to this movie and set it apart from the rest of the series. But, on paper, a younger Moore would definitively have nailed it and would been great.

    True, though I'm fine with Laz, but if I'm going to pick someone who could play in that film, then I'd rather see Roger than Connery.

    Apart from the reason that I could easily imagine him in that story, the second reason was the possibility of Rigg's casting, she made the film work, I think Rigg would still get casted even Moore is the Bond for that film.
  • Posts: 3,275
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Roger doing the Saint-style playboy casino bit, the romance, the comedy stuff with Sir Hillary surrounded by girls, being able to match Savalas and Rigg charisma-wise... I do actually see it as a missed opportunity. Apart from the fights I think it just would have been plain better.
    I agree with you. It's just I like the fact that Lazenby's only movie was OHMSS. It gives a lovely specificity to this movie and set it apart from the rest of the series. But, on paper, a younger Moore would definitively have nailed it and would been great.

    True, though I'm fine with Laz, but if I'm going to pick someone who could play in that film, then I'd rather see Roger than Connery.

    Apart from the reason that I could easily imagine him in that story, the second reason was the possibility of Rigg's casting, she made the film work, I think Rigg would still get casted even Moore is the Bond for that film.

    Had Moore been in OHMSS, maybe the direction for the 70's would have changed too. Assuming the film was a success with Rog in, then maybe DAF would have been a very different kind of movie.

    Instead, the campy DAF we got instead was a direct response to the outcome of OHMSS, which was seen as a failure at the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.