Jump to content

Butch And D-Mal's James Bond Learning Tree Thread


Devon Malcolm

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
I've been watching all the Bonds in sequence recently and I'm up to Octopussy now. It's quite clear, though, that the Roger Moore Bond films are not only superior but without people thinking this is some kind of ironic bollocks I am trotting out here, they are mostly underrated as well.

The Roger Moore ones have been labelled with some sort of retroactive cheesey naffness (possibly down to so many parodies in the following years), but even if you don't care for Moore's portrayal, the films themselves are spot on. The studio had the formula down to a tee, and they had the budget for big sets and stunts.

 

I grew up in a house that viewed Octopussy as a poor offering, and when I watched it again during one of the Bond seasons of recent years, I thought it was nowhere near as bad as I'd been encouraged to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The mistake many people (not all) make when they are judging the Roger Moore films is that they compare them to Sean Connery's films. Which is stupid.

 

The two of them are absolutely chalk and cheese in so many ways. When they hired Moore, they knew that they had to take the series in a different direction. The Harry Palmer films had come along and had covered the 'serious spy' genre better than the Connery Bonds had done. So they did something a little bit more accessible and immediately entertaining with a completely different actor who could successfully take Bond in a different direction.

 

And he did. Is Roger Moore technically a 'good actor'? No. Was he a good James Bond? Absolutely. He was decent enough in the action scenes, he was handsome enough, he didn't mind sending himself up a bit, he was smarmy and arrogant, and he was cracking with a one-liner. They kept him on for one film too long, that was the only mistake they made with him.

 

As for Octopussy, it is great fun. It's really, really stupid. But it's hilarious and exciting and that opening scene is still as effective and quite chilling as it was when I first saw it 25 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Butch and Gladstone. Did Timothy Dalton deserve a longer run in the Bond role?

According to IMDB he was scheduled to star in Goldeneye but resigned as he wasn't interested anymore. He wasn't axed from the role as such.

 

Interestingly, it also says on IMDB that Dalton was the first choice to be Bond in OHMSS, but he felt he was too young. He was also offered the role again before Roger Moore and during Moore's tenure but couldn't due to his existing stage and screen commitments. When he was finally able to take the role, Pierce Brosnan had been approached as the producers had pretty much given up on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Butch and Gladstone. Did Timothy Dalton deserve a longer run in the Bond role?

According to IMDB he was scheduled to star in Goldeneye but resigned as he wasn't interested anymore. He wasn't axed from the role as such.

 

Interestingly, it also says on IMDB that Dalton was the first choice to be Bond in OHMSS, but he felt he was too young. He was also offered the role again before Roger Moore and during Moore's tenure but couldn't due to his existing stage and screen commitments. When he was finally able to take the role, Pierce Brosnan had been approached as the producers had pretty much given up on him.

 

I'd take all that with a pinch of salt. A lot of random stuff is quoted as fact om IMDB. Dalton would have been in his 20s and still shagging his way around Colwyn Bay when OHMSS was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Butch and Gladstone. Did Timothy Dalton deserve a longer run in the Bond role?

According to IMDB he was scheduled to star in Goldeneye but resigned as he wasn't interested anymore. He wasn't axed from the role as such.

 

Interestingly, it also says on IMDB that Dalton was the first choice to be Bond in OHMSS, but he felt he was too young. He was also offered the role again before Roger Moore and during Moore's tenure but couldn't due to his existing stage and screen commitments. When he was finally able to take the role, Pierce Brosnan had been approached as the producers had pretty much given up on him.

 

I'd take all that with a pinch of salt. A lot of random stuff is quoted as fact om IMDB. Dalton would have been in his 20s and still shagging his way around Colwyn Bay when OHMSS was made.

You're probably right about OHMSS and IMDB. It's one of those 'facts' that i'll end up quoting regularly to the point I believe it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure that's true, actually. He was a bit of an upcoming heartthrob at the time, and he was well-known enough.

 

The other bit of the story you didn't relate there was that, following Moore, they actually decided they wanted Brosnan, but he was unable/unwilling to break his contract with Remington Steel (a big tv show at the time) as it was unexpectedly renewed. So they approached Dalton again, who was free and he got the role.

 

When Dalton decided he didn't want to do any more, they went back to Brosnan.

 

It's weird to think that Dalton is older than Brosnan, but he is by about 6 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was in the recent "Bond" issue of empire.

 

"Lets be clear i was not offered it".Dalton says "but i was asked if i wanted to do it at the end of the meeting and i said no beause it would be ridiculous to take over from sean connery how could i? how could anyone?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
IMDB definitely should not be taken as gospel. If it were, Johnny Depp would have been considered for every male lead for the last decade.

 

He was. He was going to play Bond, actually, with a lispy shit little accent, and a felt suit. The Willy Wonka movie is 25% outtakes from the Depp Casino Royale, 25% new footage, and 50% just following Deep Roy around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I re-watched For Your Eyes Only (1981) recently and have to admit I'd forgot just how good it is.

I'd have to agree with that. It's definately the only 100% serious "Roger Moore as Bond" movie. Great film.

 

After that, it went downhill. "Octopussy" was appalling.

 

(Timothy Dalton on nearly being cast as Bond in "On Her Majestys..") I'm fairly sure that's true, actually. He was a bit of an upcoming heartthrob at the time, and he was well-known enough.

He pops up in a James Bond-esq film called "Permission to Kill" in 1975. So I don't think he was as young as everybody thought he was when he took the part, so the "On Her Majesty's..." casting rumours might have been true.

 

Brosnan should have just took the part when he got offered it before "A View to a Kill". "Remington Steele" was shit.

Edited by bAzTNM#1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I felt gutted for Roger Moore when he had to shag Mayday in 'A View to a Kill'. Bond is always portrayed as a fucking wonderful, crazy job where you biff any bit of sort you like. But when he shagged Grace Jones, I thought 'It's a tough job, really'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
I felt gutted for Roger Moore when he had to shag Mayday in 'A View to a Kill'. Bond is always portrayed as a fucking wonderful, crazy job where you biff any bit of sort you like. But when he shagged Grace Jones, I thought 'It's a tough job, really'.

 

Moore handed in his man-card when he turned down Lynn-Holly Johnson in FYEO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...