111 replies to this topic

[mttvolcano]

What if Roger Moore stayed in for the living daylights? I have just been thinking about this lately, no idea why.
Do you think he could have pulled it off? What kind of movie would it have been? (i really don't want sarcastic answers either.)

Edited by mttvolcano, 13 February 2011 - 11:56 PM.

[Binyamin]

At that point Moore would have been really, really pushing it. He was pushing it for the last three films. I don't think anybody would have been able to take it seriously.

In other news.... Am I the only person in the world who never realized that Moore is actually OLDER than Connery? Just checked their birth dates and couldn't believe it.

[jaguar007]

They would have had to re-title the movie "Oldfinger"

In other news.... Am I the only person in the world who never realized that Moore is actually OLDER than Connery? Just checked their birth dates and couldn't believe it.

why yes, yes you are

[dogmanstar]

I think if Moore had stayed for TLD then the film makers would have rejected anything about the Fleming story ala AVTAK. And we would still have hanging around unfilmed the short story today. (Or it would have been picked up later, maybe when Brosnan came on scene).

[Virgosy]

What if Roger Moore stayed in for the living daylights?

1 ) Would have been able to finish the shooting ?
2 ) Already in "A view to a kill" the stuntman was apparent in the action scenes, so what about two years later ? Roger Moore is perfect during Zorin's reception, and he's the only actor who would have been able to perform this scene as he did it. No Connery, no Dalton, but Roger, yes. He inserts perfectly himself with the champagne, the taking pictures ring, the baroque music etc... But during fight scenes, or action scenes in general, no, we don't believe in it here.
3 ) And the most important to me, what about Dalton if Roger would stayed for "The living daylights" ? Would we have had the Brosnan's period as we've had it ? I'm not sure. The saga would have taken a definitive turn, and Bond would be more comic, or, no, the approach of the character would be still comic. Not to be confused I mean.

"A view to a kill" starring Roger Moore aged ten years younger and an approach of Bond character like in "For your eyes only" = whooooo !

It would have been a great movie, wouldn't it ?

Edit : rectifying the grammar errors

Edited by Virgosy, 14 February 2011 - 03:03 PM.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I think it could have worked had his age been acknowledged - either as a final mission or an older Bond being brought out of retirement. Moore actually looked fitter and more Bondish in The Quest, the lousy Jean Claude van Damme movie, than he did in AVTAK - and he would have been in his late-60s at the time.

[mttvolcano]

I think it could have worked had his age been acknowledged - either as a final mission or an older Bond being brought out of retirement. Moore actually looked fitter and more Bondish in The Quest, the lousy Jean Claude van Damme movie, than he did in AVTAK - and he would have been in his late-60s at the time.

Lol can you imagine him as James Bond during the time he did The Enemy?

[Mr. Blofeld]

whooooo !

Was that supposed to approximate the dubbed-over sounds Roger made in his later movies?

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Lol can you imagine him as James Bond during the time he did The Enemy?

Never saw The Enemy. He definitely seemed too old in Alias to pull it off, and that was shot around the same time. Those six or seven years make a huge difference, though. People start to age rapidly once they hit seventy.

The big problem with Moore in View to a Kill is that he was still playing the role as though he were fortyish.

[Mr_Wint]

I think if Moore had stayed for TLD then the film makers would have rejected anything about the Fleming story ala AVTAK.

...or they would've decided to not reject it á la FYEO & OP. Not sure what you are trying to say.

[jaguar007]

I think if Moore had stayed for TLD then the film makers would have rejected anything about the Fleming story ala AVTAK.

...or they would've decided to not reject it á la FYEO & OP. Not sure what you are trying to say.

Not sure, but I have a feeling that dogmanstar is saying that with Moore, they may not have had Bond doing the "sniper assassination" scene as Moore never really portrayed the assassin aspect of Bond.

[Doctor Whom]

I really don't know how he could have pulled it off.

When John Glen arrived on the scene, and the Bond films upped their action quotient, Moore (who was never the most athetic person) was really put at a disadvantage. It was one thing for him to be in his mid-to-late 50's. It was quite another to be in his mid-to-late 50's and fairly obviously out of shape. Fortuantely, Moore's abundant natural charm makes him watchable, even in AVTAK. One more would have been pushing it, though.

[David_M]

Much as I love Roger (and he is my favorite), he'd have been too old to make TLD work, a fact which to his credit he acknowledged himself.

The one part that might work *better* is the death warrant issued against the Russian general. But only if the general had been Gogol and not Pushkin. Their history together would have added weight to Bond and M's scene near the start, with Bond openly skeptical and M feeling somewhat pained to have to order the death of a man he's teamed with before, and angry with Bond for making it even harder. I'm not at all sure Roger could have pulled off the scene in the hotel where it looks -- for an instant -- like he's ready to shoot the general, but it would have been all kinds of awesome to see him try to pull it off in a serious way. Even without Roger, and with all due respect to the great John Rhys-Davies, the film really needed Gogol there in place of Pushkin, a character we'd never even met.

Otherwise, Roger's presence would have hobbled the film, honestly. We wouldn't have believed even briefly that he might shoot Kara in Bratislava. More importantly, the romance angle -- with Bond falling for a naive young cellist -- would have taken on a creepy tone. Kara is one Bond girl who *must* be young to work at all...otherwise she's not a "youthful innocent," just a twit. Having a 60-ish Roger woo a 20-something Kara would have been just wrong; better to have left him in the arms of Octopussy, an equal in sophistication and relative equal in age.

A lot of the success of TLD has to do with the physicality of it; Dalton gives us a tougher, more limber and active Bond, which is where they'd obviously been trying to take the films since FYEO. It just wasn't a style that suited Roger's approach, and without it, you're left with the convoluted arms-for-drugs plot we got anyway, only without the believable action scenes to break it up here and there. I think it would have ended up a snoozer at best.

[dogmanstar]

I think if Moore had stayed for TLD then the film makers would have rejected anything about the Fleming story ala AVTAK.

...or they would've decided to not reject it á la FYEO & OP. Not sure what you are trying to say.

Not sure, but I have a feeling that dogmanstar is saying that with Moore, they may not have had Bond doing the "sniper assassination" scene as Moore never really portrayed the assassin aspect of Bond.

Yep, that's what I meant.

[jaguar007]

I'm not at all sure Roger could have pulled off the scene in the hotel where it looks -- for an instant -- like he's ready to shoot the general, but it would have been all kinds of awesome to see him try to pull it off in a serious way.

I remember an interview with Dalton in 87 where he said that scene was re-written after he was cast. Originally Bond broke into Pushkin's suite in a very civilized way and they sat and drink Champagne.

[David_M]

I remember an interview with Dalton in 87 where he said that scene was re-written after he was cast. Originally Bond broke into Pushkin's suite in a very civilized way and they sat and drink Champagne.

Now you mention it, I remember reading that, too.

It certainly works better as re-written, but you have to admit Roger is probably the only guy in the world who could convincingly commit unlawful entry "in a very civilized way." LOL

[Mark_Hazard]

Lol can you imagine him as James Bond during the time he did The Enemy?

Never saw The Enemy. He definitely seemed too old in Alias to pull it off, and that was shot around the same time. Those six or seven years make a huge difference, though. People start to age rapidly once they hit seventy.

You didn't miss anything, a disgusting adaptation of a brilliant book (by Desmond Bagley).

[elizabeth]

If Moore had been in TLD, I'm sure it would have been terrific, but Moore would just be too old. He was already old enough in AVTAK.

[hilly]

On the plus side however, if Rog had stayed, then we may have had Lois Maxwell for one more film too.
This is the only adavantage I can think of though.. As others have said, wonderful as Roger is, he was pushing it a little in AVTAK. I can remember the stifled giggles in the cinema when it was released, at how elderly he looked. Whilst still in fairly good shape for his age, he really was too old to be playing Bond. Can you imagine him clinging to the top of the land rover in the PTS? Or riding the cello case down the mountain?
On the whole, I think he should have called it a day after Octopussy. However, having said that, I don't think that AVTAK would have been the strongest introduction for Dalton, as he would look equally ludicrous in the jacuzzi with Fiona Fullerton, in the warehouse fight alongside Patrick Macnee, hanging from the fire engine or in bed with Grace Jones..

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think if Moore had stayed for TLD then the film makers would have rejected anything about the Fleming story ala AVTAK. And we would still have hanging around unfilmed the short story today. (Or it would have been picked up later, maybe when Brosnan came on scene).

I don't really think so... having in mind, that they did use the Fleming stories for the movies FYEO (with the adition of Risico) and OP (also including The Property Of A Lady).

And the angle of "sniper assassination" I think it was already proved in some way with Moore in TMWTGG.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 18 February 2011 - 08:38 PM.

[Loomis]

Much as I love Roger (and he is my favorite), he'd have been too old to make TLD work, a fact which to his credit he acknowledged himself.

The one part that might work *better* is the death warrant issued against the Russian general. But only if the general had been Gogol and not Pushkin. Their history together would have added weight to Bond and M's scene near the start, with Bond openly skeptical and M feeling somewhat pained to have to order the death of a man he's teamed with before, and angry with Bond for making it even harder. I'm not at all sure Roger could have pulled off the scene in the hotel where it looks -- for an instant -- like he's ready to shoot the general, but it would have been all kinds of awesome to see him try to pull it off in a serious way. Even without Roger, and with all due respect to the great John Rhys-Davies, the film really needed Gogol there in place of Pushkin, a character we'd never even met.

Otherwise, Roger's presence would have hobbled the film, honestly. We wouldn't have believed even briefly that he might shoot Kara in Bratislava. More importantly, the romance angle -- with Bond falling for a naive young cellist -- would have taken on a creepy tone. Kara is one Bond girl who *must* be young to work at all...otherwise she's not a "youthful innocent," just a twit. Having a 60-ish Roger woo a 20-something Kara would have been just wrong; better to have left him in the arms of Octopussy, an equal in sophistication and relative equal in age.

A lot of the success of TLD has to do with the physicality of it; Dalton gives us a tougher, more limber and active Bond, which is where they'd obviously been trying to take the films since FYEO. It just wasn't a style that suited Roger's approach, and without it, you're left with the convoluted arms-for-drugs plot we got anyway, only without the believable action scenes to break it up here and there. I think it would have ended up a snoozer at best.

I love Dalton's performance in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, but I do believe that Moore could have done the film, with just a few tweaks to the script. Done correctly, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS might have been his second FOR YOUR EYES ONLY but even better. It could have been a classy and rather poignant climax for the Moore era (much as I love A VIEW TO A KILL, it is neither of those things).

I slightly disagree with you on the "physicality" of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS - about the only action scene I can think of that would have seemed utterly absurd for Moore at the time is the opening parachute jump. Most of the action in the film hinges on scenes of Bond driving, flying or just shooting people, all of which would have been perfectly believable (relatively speaking, at least) for Moore. And there's plenty of emphasis on good old-fashioned surveillance and spying, which would have suited the 60-year-old Moore quite well.

With the Bond/Kara relationship desexualised and rewritten along Bibi Dahl lines (albeit with less goofy humour), Gogol instead of Pushkin, and maybe a Pola Ivanova-style older woman for 007 to dally with at some point, as well as few other alterations, then, yes, I think Moore could have done THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and acquitted himself very well. The poignancy referred to above would have come from the suggestion that an ageing Bond sees protecting Kara as his one last shot at redemption.

Another thing about THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (although it certainly wasn't apparent when the film was released) is that it has an end-of-an-era flavour, being the last of the Cold War Bond outings (although LICENCE TO KILL was released when the USSR still existed and was still active in Afghanistan, it doesn't really count since it completely ignores Cold War politics). Which would have added to its suitability as Moore's final outing.

[mttvolcano]

Hmmm...very interesting discussion.
I welcome it

I love Dalton's performance in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, but I do believe that Moore could have done the film, with just a few tweaks to the script. Done correctly, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS might have been his second FOR YOUR EYES ONLY but even better. It could have been a classy and rather poignant climax for the Moore era (much as I love A VIEW TO A KILL, it is neither of those things).

I slightly disagree with you on the "physicality" of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS - about the only action scene I can think of that would have seemed utterly absurd for Moore at the time is the opening parachute jump. Most of the action in the film hinges on scenes of Bond driving, flying or just shooting people, all of which would have been perfectly believable (relatively speaking, at least) for Moore. And there's plenty of emphasis on good old-fashioned surveillance and spying, which would have suited the 60-year-old Moore quite well.

With the Bond/Kara relationship desexualised and rewritten along Bibi Dahl lines (albeit with less goofy humour), Gogol instead of Pushkin, and maybe a Pola Ivanova-style older woman for 007 to dally with at some point, as well as few other alterations, then, yes, I think Moore could have done THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and acquitted himself very well. The poignancy referred to above would have come from the suggestion that an ageing Bond sees protecting Kara as his one last shot at redemption.

Another thing about THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (although it certainly wasn't apparent when the film was released) is that it has an end-of-an-era flavour, being the last of the Cold War Bond outings (although LICENCE TO KILL was released when the USSR still existed and was still active in Afghanistan, it doesn't really count since it completely ignores Cold War politics). Which would have added to its suitability as Moore's final outing.

Wow very detailed, never thought of it that way.

[Simon]

I think that, or wonder if, people are comparing the result of AVTAK with the result of TLD, and are probably correctly saying that the film, as released, could not have withstood Moore in the released version of TLD.

But Loomers is right in his assessment of the action in TLD. Quite reasonably, the as-released film with Moore would have been done differently to accomodate, play up strengths and play down weaknesses. It would not have been a Dalton-esque TLD with Moore in his place. It would have been a Moore TLD - an entirely different animal.

As someone who was probably of roughly the correct age (21) to be viewing and excitedly anticipating the next film after AVTAK, I must say I would have been more than happy to have seen Moore in TLD. That was then. I am aware now, having the luxury of age, wisdom(?) and a number of Bond films after TLD to watch younger and more athletic actors do their thing, and do it differently, Moore was probably too old for AVTAK and would most certainly have been too old for TLD.

But, I maintain my stance, Moore's strengths were his presence, his voice, his charm and his easy humour. All of which were thoroughly welcomed by the cinema going public At That Time.

Dalton, Brosnan and Craig all had and have their unique strengths. But if we agree Moore had the above stated strengths, I would submit these strengths have yet to be equalled by his successors.

And for me, and at the time, I would have been more than happy to have had more Moore in 1987.

[talos7]

I think it could have worked had his age been acknowledged - either as a final mission or an older Bond being brought out of retirement. Moore actually looked fitter and more Bondish in The Quest, the lousy Jean Claude van Damme movie, than he did in AVTAK - and he would have been in his late-60s at the time.

Not long ago I saw The Quest and thought the same thing, that Moore actually looked better in this than AVTAK. With that said, I don't think he should have done another Bond.

[Capsule in Space]

After reading this thread a questions comes to mind. Was Roger Moore's age the main factor for A View to a Kill's weakness as a Bond film? Of course this question is posed to those who think this film was a bad installment. A View to a Kill has its fans. It's not my favorite, but I don't loathe it as many do.

[Stainless Steel Teeth INC]

Recalling how much I enjoyed seeing AVTAK back in '85 my relative innocence and age did not regard Moore as too old for the part and nor did I think it odd he was romancing a woman almost a third of his age. Because it WAS Roger I looked beyond all of these things and excepted them for what they were.

But as has already been mentioned he really should have called it quits after Octopussy and truly gone out on an 'all time high'.

However, with all of these 'what if's' being offered... what if Roger had quit in '83, how different would AVTAK have been? No doubt the 'harder edge' that was brought back in TLD would have appeared here instead and we could have been spared that robotic dog for starters! It would definitely be interesting to see what else would have changed.

[AViewToAPussy]

I think it would have been stretching credibility a little too much having an ageing Roger Moore battling it out on a net full of drugs while hanging out of the back of a plane high above Afghanistan.

[Capsule in Space]

I think it would have been stretching credibility a little too much having an ageing Roger Moore battling it out on a net full of drugs while hanging out of the back of a plane high above Afghanistan.

Roger held on to the roof of a plane in Octopussy...

Recalling how much I enjoyed seeing AVTAK back in '85 my relative innocence and age did not regard Moore as too old for the part and nor did I think it odd he was romancing a woman almost a third of his age. Because it WAS Roger I looked beyond all of these things and excepted them for what they were.

But as has already been mentioned he really should have called it quits after Octopussy and truly gone out on an 'all time high'.

However, with all of these 'what if's' being offered... what if Roger had quit in '83, how different would AVTAK have been? No doubt the 'harder edge' that was brought back in TLD would have appeared here instead and we could have been spared that robotic dog for starters! It would definitely be interesting to see what else would have changed.

So now when you watch A View to a Kill, do you think Roger's age plays a factor in the film's quality, or lack thereof?

Edited by Capsule in Space, 18 March 2011 - 11:59 PM.

[Stainless Steel Teeth INC]

So now when you watch A View to a Kill, do you think Roger's age plays a factor in the film's quality, or lack thereof?
[/quote]

To some extent, sadly yes.

The fact is that Bond is a physical role and charm only gets you so far. We obviously know that it's impossible for any actor to perform all their own stunts but it is important that we believe that they are capable and it was at this point that I can now see he is lacking in the physicality and intensity of the role. Certain scenes (like the PTS) required the director to film around this fact and meant that the ski suit almost had to hide 007's entire head so that the match-up shots between the stunt man & Roger could work better. In hindsight it's little things like this that now start to detract from the performance and take me (as the viewer) out of the film more than I would like.

However, that's not to say the film completely fails. The Eiffel Tower sequence is a stand out, the ever present 'Moore' charm definitely still works it's magic and Christopher Walken is on fine form but the film as a whole does however feel 'flabby' especially when compared to TLD that felt like a 'shot in the arm' when first released.

[Capsule in Space]

To some extent, sadly yes.

The fact is that Bond is a physical role and charm only gets you so far. We obviously know that it's impossible for any actor to perform all their own stunts but it is important that we believe that they are capable and it was at this point that I can now see he is lacking in the physicality and intensity of the role. Certain scenes (like the PTS) required the director to film around this fact and meant that the ski suit almost had to hide 007's entire head so that the match-up shots between the stunt man & Roger could work better. In hindsight it's little things like this that now start to detract from the performance and take me (as the viewer) out of the film more than I would like.

However, that's not to say the film completely fails. The Eiffel Tower sequence is a stand out, the ever present 'Moore' charm definitely still works it's magic and Christopher Walken is on fine form but the film as a whole does however feel 'flabby' especially when compared to TLD that felt like a 'shot in the arm' when first released.

This is hard for me to say because I love Roger Moore, but I have to agree with you. I think his presence was a negative factor in the film. Age is the obvious culprit, but after I'd seen some recent interviews with him it shed more light on to this situation.

Roger is polite and circumspect, so you kind of have to read into was he says. I get the feeling from his comments that he was not happy during this production. He was working with divas that were always late and had bad attitudes (he comes right out and says that he had problems with Grace Jones), he wasn't a fan of the story (he really dislikes some of the scenes in the mine), and I get the sense that by 1985 he was fed up with all the nonsense that goes into making these type of films.

So, I get what you are saying SST Inc., but I think on top of what you've stated is that Roger simply wasn't enjoying himself anymore. He was ready to move on, and I think maybe that energy comes out in his performance.

Nevertheless, A View to a Kill has its merits. You pointed out some of them already. I'll reiterate your comments on Moore and say that he was excellent in many scenes. His interactions with Walken's character were very fun to watch. I would like to add that Patrick Macknee's presence was also a plus.