Where does Bond go after Craig?

1170171173175176523

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,927
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    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.

    Yes I can't think that Moore and Rigg ever worked together, but on the basis that both were great with Pat Macnee, I think they'd have worked together very well!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,525
    mtm wrote: »
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    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.

    Yes I can't think that Moore and Rigg ever worked together, but on the basis that both were great with Pat Macnee, I think they'd have worked together very well!

    They are both strong enough actors to work well with each other.
  • Posts: 2,895
    I don't agree at all. Nor do I think Roger Moore would have done very well in OHMSS. He would have had zero chemistry with Diana Rigg and she would have made him look lightweight and artificial. Lazenby worked well alongside of her because Hunt used the old tactic of placing a professional with an amateur, with the latter's spontaneity complementing the former's polish. His natural cockiness and unselfconscious physical assurance clicked with her hauteur and inner fire. Roger would have come off as brittle, coy, and cold next to Rigg, in the same way David Niven (the previous generation's Roger Moore) would have looked stagy alongside an actress of equivalent strength. And looking over Moore's films, it's interesting how often he fails to connect with the lead actresses (not entirely his fault, since most of the actresses in his Bond films aren't particularly good). He has a decent connection with Maud Adams in OP, but she was not an actress anywhere on Rigg's level. If she was, she would have probably blown him off the screen. I'm very fond of Roger, but not to the point of overrating him.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    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.

    Agree completely. And the same goes for every other actor too.

    Strong and distinctive directors when the novelty of an actor or franchise wanes is a great idea universally to keep things fresh.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2022 Posts: 17,687
    So, not filming the next Bond for at least two years. And then it won't come out for at least two more years.
    No Time To Wait at a theatre near you 2026!
    Give the franchise to Disney- we'll have movies every other year + a bunch of streaming series. :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 14,927
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't agree at all. Nor do I think Roger Moore would have done very well in OHMSS. He would have had zero chemistry with Diana Rigg and she would have made him look lightweight and artificial.

    How on Earth can you possibly know how much chemistry they'd have had. Just arguing for the sake of it.

    It's not like Bond and Tracy even have all that much screentime together. I think I could do as well in a montage as Lazenby did!
    Revelator wrote: »
    Lazenby worked well alongside of her because Hunt used the old tactic of placing a professional with an amateur, with the latter's spontaneity complementing the former's polish. His natural cockiness and unselfconscious physical assurance clicked with her hauteur and inner fire. Roger would have come off as brittle, coy, and cold next to Rigg, in the same way David Niven (the previous generation's Roger Moore) would have looked stagy alongside an actress of equivalent strength.

    On that logic Pat Macnee could never have sparked off against her or shared any warmth. She didn't only work with amateur actors, far from it.
    When has Moore ever come off as 'cold, coy and brittle'?
    Revelator wrote: »
    And looking over Moore's films, it's interesting how often he fails to connect with the lead actresses (not entirely his fault, since most of the actresses in his Bond films aren't particularly good). He has a decent connection with Maud Adams in OP, but she was not an actress anywhere on Rigg's level. If she was, she would have probably blown him off the screen. I'm very fond of Roger, but not to the point of overrating him.

    He worked with a great many actors who were better than him, he was never blown off the screen because his talent was having charisma.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,959
    Don’t take the bait.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 14,927
    Yes you're right, sorry. I'm trying not to rise to those sorts of things.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited June 2022 Posts: 2,161
    @Revelator is not baiting anyone. I know him personally, he’s a serious film historian. That’s intrinsic to how he makes his living. Whether you agree with him or not, he’s not just trying to rile people.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,959
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @Revelator is not baiting anyone. I know him personally, he’s a serious film historian. That’s intrinsic to how he makes his living. Whether you agree with him or not, he’s not just trying to rile people.

    Good to know. His post was so strongly contrary to the general opinion that , for me it seemed to be intentionally provocative. I stand corrected.
  • Posts: 2,895
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @Revelator is not baiting anyone. I know him personally, he’s a serious film historian. That’s intrinsic to how he makes his living. Whether you agree with him or not, he’s not just trying to rile people.

    Thank you @Birdleson
    mtm wrote: »
    How on Earth can you possibly know how much chemistry they'd have had. Just arguing for the sake of it.

    In the same way that you knew Rigg would have played well with Moore because she played well with Moore. And to your second sentence, tu quoque.
    It's not like Bond and Tracy even have all that much screentime together. I think I could do as well in a montage as Lazenby did!

    Then let's be glad you didn't. I've never felt Bond and Tracy had a shortage of screentime together.
    On that logic Pat Macnee could never have sparked off against her or shared any warmth.

    And by what logic would Macnee the exact same actor and personality as Moore? He was a stronger actor.
    She didn't only work with amateur actors, far from it.

    When did I say opposite?
    When has Moore ever come off as 'cold, coy and brittle'?

    We can start with his first two Bond films...
    He worked with a great many actors who were better than him, he was never blown off the screen because his talent was having charisma.

    And he was the lesser presence in The Sea Wolves, The Wild Geese, TMWTGG, and Shout at the Devil.

    I simply don't think Rigg and Moore's talents and personalities would have been compatible. Roger was the first to point out his limitations as an actor. He was probably capable of somewhat more than he allowed, but there's a core truth to his comments. For me, Moore has a lot in common with David Niven--a wonderfully charming actor but not quite in the Cary Grant in one direction or comparable to Spencer Tracy in the other. That said, Roger perhaps had slightly greater range than Niven, and in his later years he could be quite avuncular. To repeat: I like Roger, but I think fans, as they are wont, might sometimes overrate his ability.

    Anyway, I apologize for further blowing this thread off-topic.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    talos7 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @Revelator is not baiting anyone. I know him personally, he’s a serious film historian. That’s intrinsic to how he makes his living. Whether you agree with him or not, he’s not just trying to rile people.

    Good to know. His post was so strongly contrary to the general opinion that , for me it seemed to be intentionally provocative. I stand corrected.

    Thanks for being understanding.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,955
    Rigg was needed *precisely* because Lazenby was an unknown.

    If it had been Moore, Eon likely would have chosen a lesser actress opposite him, as they did for most of the '60s.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,507
    I'm glad and relieved they cast Rigg as Tracy. They needed someone of her calibre to make the character of Bond's wife stand apart from the rest. Exactly like Eva Green with Vesper. They're the only two women in Bond's life who should always be in their own league
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2022 Posts: 14,927
    Revelator wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    How on Earth can you possibly know how much chemistry they'd have had. Just arguing for the sake of it.

    In the same way that you knew Rigg would have played well with Moore because she played well with Moore. And to your second sentence, tu quoque.

    I said "I think they'd have worked very well together". I don't know for sure, I didn't claim to. Compare with your statement that "He would have had zero chemistry with Diana Rigg".
    I never claimed that I "knew" anything for sure, unlike yourself. So your second sentence doesn't really work. I'm merely making observations based on how he never really had any trouble creating warm screen relationships with anyone he worked with, and neither did Rigg.

    Chemistry is called just that because it's rather unknowable: it just happens and can't be planned. So quite how you can pretend to know for sure that they wouldn't have had any at all is kind of counter to what the term actually means.
    Revelator wrote: »
    It's not like Bond and Tracy even have all that much screentime together. I think I could do as well in a montage as Lazenby did!

    Then let's be glad you didn't.

    I'm starting to think Talos spoke too soon... ;)
    Revelator wrote: »
    On that logic Pat Macnee could never have sparked off against her or shared any warmth.

    And by what logic would Macnee the exact same actor and personality as Moore? He was a stronger actor.

    They were very much on the same level, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Macnee was a decent actor, just as Moore was, and likewise had an immense amount of charm which shone out of the screen. That's why they worked so well together and worked with each other many times, neither outshining the other in any of their appearances but complimenting each other.

    But what is your point about Macnee being better? That Rigg only worked well with better actors than Moore? The idea that she worked better against a worse actor than Moore as Bond has lost me slightly. Did she need someone better than Lazenby or worse or than Moore? Or better than Moore?
    Revelator wrote: »
    She didn't only work with amateur actors, far from it.

    When did I say opposite?

    You suggest that "Hunt used the old tactic of placing a professional with an amateur", as if it wouldn't have worked with two professionals.
    Even if that's not what you're saying, just because Hunt used that trick doesn't for a moment mean that two professionals couldn't have done it. That is pretty much the standard way of doing it.

    Revelator wrote: »
    When has Moore ever come off as 'cold, coy and brittle'?

    We can start with his first two Bond films...

    You can if you like, but it's not something I can agree on at all. He's far from cold in those, he's as warm a presence as he ever was. Comparatively he's more comfortable with Lewis Gilbert, but we can also see from his work with Peter Hunt himself that 'cold' etc. was not a product of their collaboration.
    Revelator wrote: »
    He worked with a great many actors who were better than him, he was never blown off the screen because his talent was having charisma.

    And he was the lesser presence in The Sea Wolves, The Wild Geese, TMWTGG, and Shout at the Devil.

    I don't think that's true at all, but he was also playing a supporting role in most of those.
    TMWTGG? That really is nonsense.
    Revelator wrote: »
    I simply don't think Rigg and Moore's talents and personalities would have been compatible.

    I'm glad you've phrased it as an opinion this time :)
    Revelator wrote: »
    Roger was the first to point out his limitations as an actor. He was probably capable of somewhat more than he allowed, but there's a core truth to his comments. For me, Moore has a lot in common with David Niven--a wonderfully charming actor but not quite in the Cary Grant in one direction or comparable to Spencer Tracy in the other. That said, Roger perhaps had slightly greater range than Niven, and in his later years he could be quite avuncular. To repeat: I like Roger, but I think fans, as they are wont, might sometimes overrate his ability.

    I don't disagree, but quite how that leads to the conclusion that he couldn't have worked with Diana Rigg is unclear. They were both very experienced and talented in their own ways, and OHMSS is hardly Shakespeare. It was well-trodden ground for both of them and I see no reason to think they'd have suddenly been unable to produce the goods just because they were put together. Do I think they'd have been the best screen couple ever committed to celluloid? Of course not, but Lazenby and her aren't exactly amazing either, and if Rigg could make screen sparks with Macnee then I see no reason to think she couldn't make that work with other stars of ITV action series.

    This is all so incredibly subjective anyway.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,927
    echo wrote: »
    Rigg was needed *precisely* because Lazenby was an unknown.

    If it had been Moore, Eon likely would have chosen a lesser actress opposite him, as they did for most of the '60s.

    Possibly, but she wasn't the first ex-Avengers star they'd hired as the female lead so it doesn't seem impossible that they'd have wanted her anyway. And as Jordo says, they did need someone strong for Mrs James Bond.
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 2,895
    mtm wrote: »
    I said "I think they'd have worked very well together". I don't know for sure, I didn't claim to. Compare with your statement that "He would have had zero chemistry with Diana Rigg".

    On a message board I don't regard it as necessary to preface every opinion with "I think." Neither do you for that matter.
    They were very much on the same level, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

    Macnee was also a good character actor, which can't really be said for Moore. He could also play lighter parts, which is why he works well alongside Roger.
    But what is your point about Macnee being better?

    That Rigg would have worked well either with an actor as strong as herself, or conversely with an amateur who would complement her polish with his spontaneity. But if you're pairing her with an actor who's not as strong as her and doesn't have an amateur's spontaneity and lack of self-consciousness, then her partner is liable to look lightweight and artificial and could be dominated by her. Hence Roger's unsuitability for OHMSS.
    You suggest that "Hunt used the old tactic of placing a professional with an amateur", as if it wouldn't have worked with two professionals.

    Not with any two professionals, no.
    You can if you like, but it's not something I can agree on at all. He's far from cold in those, he's as warm a presence as he ever was.

    I don't see any warmth in those films, that's part of my problem with them. He's colder and stiffer than he would be under Glen or Gilbert.
    but we can also see from his work with Peter Hunt himself that 'cold' etc. was not a product of their collaboration

    In Gold it arguably is, though I still like the film, and while there's some amusement in the contrast between Moore and Lee Marvin, I could see Shout at the Devil working better with a more passionate actor than Moore.
    TMWTGG? That really is nonsense.

    You forgot to preface that with "I think."
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,102
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm glad and relieved they cast Rigg as Tracy. They needed someone of her calibre to make the character of Bond's wife stand apart from the rest. Exactly like Eva Green with Vesper. They're the only two women in Bond's life who should always be in their own league

    I think that Sixtine in Forever and a Day comes close as well.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited June 2022 Posts: 2,921
    How highly regarded as an actress was Diana Rigg at the time? Emma Peel was great, but I wouldn't've thought The Avengers had given her a reputation as a serious actress by the time of OHMSS. Was she well regarded 'in the industry' for her RSC work, even if the general public weren't very aware of it?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,507
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm glad and relieved they cast Rigg as Tracy. They needed someone of her calibre to make the character of Bond's wife stand apart from the rest. Exactly like Eva Green with Vesper. They're the only two women in Bond's life who should always be in their own league

    I think that Sixtine in Forever and a Day comes close as well.

    I haven't read the Horowitz novels yet. I'll take your word on it my friend
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 2,869
    Must say, I'm not seeing how Roger was cold or wooden in his first two Bond films at all... or indeed anything he did. Perhaps the material didn't do justice to his Bond (especially TMWTGG) but if anything he was rather an underrated actor I'd say. As for him being in OHMSS... I don't know how such a casting decision would have played out but I do think Lazenby is by far the weakest link in that film. I don't think he had Moore's charm, screen presence, and indeed subtlety.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2022 Posts: 3,389
    mtm wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Rigg was needed *precisely* because Lazenby was an unknown.

    If it had been Moore, Eon likely would have chosen a lesser actress opposite him, as they did for most of the '60s.

    Possibly, but she wasn't the first ex-Avengers star they'd hired as the female lead so it doesn't seem impossible that they'd have wanted her anyway. And as Jordo says, they did need someone strong for Mrs James Bond.

    No she was casted because of her popularity from Avengers as Emma Peel so they would still likely to hire her had Moore been Bond at the time.

    They even had no other actresses in mind to consider for the role, other than Bardot (who wanted to work with Connery), Deneuve (who rejected the role), and Bisset (again rejected the role).

    And to be honest, I don't liked any of them, they wouldn't worked.

    It's only Rigg who'd said yes because she wanted to star in a big time film, and my God! What a blessing she was! She made the film worked! She nailed it, she truly owned the role.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,959
    Connery / Deneuve, wow.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2022 Posts: 3,389
    talos7 wrote: »
    Connery / Deneuve, wow.

    No, I don't want Deneuve, I could easily see her as a villainess a la Elektra or something like Octopussy, but not Tracy sorry.

    And I don't think she's sexy, charismatic and versatile as Rigg.

    If she had been cast, Tracy would not likely to be my favorite, she couldn't make Tracy iconic or popular as Diana Rigg was.

    Connery and Rigg? Why not.
    Moore and Rigg? Why not.
    Different Bond Actors with Rigg? Why not!

    Just because you could pair any actors with Rigg and it would still work, look at the dynamic between her and Savalas.

    Because she's just excellent.

    But a different actress? No way!

    And she's even not a versatile actress to begin with, I didn't see her play some different roles.

    But based on Manckiewicz' article, she wanted the role of Anya Amasova, I think she could have nailed it, no against Barbara Bach but she's only a model, what the role needs was an actress.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2022 Posts: 14,927
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I'm glad and relieved they cast Rigg as Tracy. They needed someone of her calibre to make the character of Bond's wife stand apart from the rest. Exactly like Eva Green with Vesper. They're the only two women in Bond's life who should always be in their own league

    I think that Sixtine in Forever and a Day comes close as well.

    Sixtine is a surprisingly strong character, yes; I liked her a lot. I was slightly less keen on the slightly Solo-ish way it turned out she introduced to him to his famous foibles of martinis and Morlands cigarettes etc. but it was still a very convincing relationship.

    (That's Solo the Star Wars film, not the Bond book! :) )

    MI6HQ wrote: »
    Connery and Rigg? Why not.
    Moore and Rigg? Why not.
    Different Bond Actors with Rigg? Why not!

    Just because you could pair any actors with Rigg and it would still work, look at the dynamic between her and Savalas.

    Because she's just excellent.

    Yes I think you're right.

    I don't blame them for looking for a European actor to start with, Tracy is supposed to be the daughter of a Corsican gangster after all!
    It's quite funny that of the two major loves of Bond's lives, the Corsican one was played by an Englishwoman with inexplicable English accent, and the English one was played by a French actor, with inexplicable French accent :D
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 203
    I am generally against the idea of Bond coming back as a period piece, but with the world getting old curtains out of the airing cupboard so to speak, perhaps a small trilogy of Cold War era Bond films could work. The books always avoided painting Russia as the full enemy though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,927
    Did they? He was full on fighting SMERSH a few times, surely?
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited July 2022 Posts: 554
    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.
    I'd prefer Connery simply because there'd be a lot of thematic weight seeing his Bond, the original, fall in love and be widowed.

    I wouldn't forgo Rigg for that, though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,927
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 2022 Posts: 3,389
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah that's understandable. I get a bit frustrated when folks say that it wouldn't have worked with Connery or Connery couldn't have done it: he was one of the best movie stars of the last 60 years, he'd have been just fine with it (as long as he fully engaged).

    I think it would have worked as long as he's engaged and as long as he have a great co-star to go with (someone like Rigg).

    It also depends on the co-star, if Connery's there but his leading lady wasn't that great it wouldn't worked.

    But the problem if the audiences at the time would have liked to see Connery's Bond falling in love? People knew his Bond as this playboy superman, they're not used to seeing Bond that way.
    So with other actor in the role, it's easy for the audiences to accept the change in Bond's character.
Sign In or Register to comment.