What if Roger Moore DID do TLD?
#1
Posted 04 September 2003 - 06:57 AM
Basically, What if Moore did TLD instead of Dalton? How would things change? Obviously Moore would deliver lines much differently than Dalton, but try to picture how he would say a certain line... or something.
Btw, it's alright to use earlier drafts/deleted scenes for reference.
I have other ideas like this up my sleeve, but let's see if this one works out.
#2
Posted 04 September 2003 - 07:05 AM
I think they had stuff ready to role (script wise) IF Roger came back OR maybe generic scenes if Pierce came on board..because at that time they didn't know his style. (remember the second act when they sorta repeated gadgets and scenes from the past movies.. kinda sorta )
It seems like the third act is all Timothy and his style.. more serious "book feel" spy stuff/action
#3
Posted 04 September 2003 - 07:38 AM
#4
Posted 04 September 2003 - 08:19 AM
Originally posted by 1q2w3e4r
I think it'd be a weak film. Doesn't fit in with the style of Roger's films, its a little dark for his portrayl of the character. I like TLD as is!
Yeah I think if you gave Timothy a shot! a ture chance to play the roll.. and not some excuse for your mistakes (007 crew)
I think Timothy is like a Patrick Stewart type guy.. you have to see more of him.. and give him some time, because he is doing something different!!!
He would have been great!! IF they kept John Glen & Timothy.. I think he would have been the best 007 easily:cool:
#5
Posted 04 September 2003 - 11:15 AM
#6
Posted 04 September 2003 - 01:48 PM
#7
Posted 04 September 2003 - 09:57 PM
I think that the tone of the film would have been much lighter and much more comedic.
#8
Posted 05 September 2003 - 08:44 AM
at first I hated it..because it wasn't roger, but now I love it.. the few scenes that are repeats from seans stuff aint that bad ( the frwl shooting, the car) but I love the arch of bond.. it shows a new twist and thats cool:cool:
#9
Posted 05 September 2003 - 11:17 AM
#10
Posted 05 September 2003 - 12:07 PM
The scene where Bond confronts Pushkin in the Morocco hotel room was originally planned to take place (when it was written) with the two characters facing each other across a table.
#11
Posted 05 September 2003 - 01:43 PM
#12
Posted 05 September 2003 - 01:48 PM
Originally posted by ChandlerBing
That scene with Pushkin was rewritten partly at Dalton's request to inject some of his own tenor into his portrayal of Bond. It was a foreshadowing of what would occut with License To Kill.
I know, I think it was a good call because as it stands right now that scene with Pushkin in the hotel room is probably my favorite scene in TLD!
#13
Posted 05 September 2003 - 01:51 PM
#14
Posted 05 September 2003 - 01:57 PM
#15
Posted 05 September 2003 - 02:00 PM
Originally posted by DLibrasnow
TLD was written for Roger Moore and only partly tweaked for Dalton.
That's not true, according to zencat (I discussed it with him on another thread recently). Moore resigned publicly as Bond in 1985, and the script for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was written after he did so. Michael Wilson and others originally kicked around the idea of writing a script about a young James Bond, but ended up writing TLD as a generic Bond adventure. It wasn't written for Moore, though.
#16
Posted 05 September 2003 - 02:04 PM
#17
Posted 05 September 2003 - 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Interestingly enough, Live and Let Die was written for a generic Bond, and the final battle with Kananga was originally more violent and brutal, but when Roger signed on, we got the incredible expanding man!
LOL....Yeah, I seriously doubt Roger had anything to do woth suggesting the means of Kananga's demise.
Loomis, perhaps I should have rephrased what I said....TLD was written with Moore in mind (hence all the one liners). They knew he would not be returning to the role but they wrote it for a "Roger Moore-type" actor. At the time Pierce Brosnan (largely because of his take on the 'Remington Steele' character) was seen as such an actor.
#18
Posted 05 September 2003 - 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Tanger
The dye was blue in the Magic Carpet scene. Are you referring to an earlier draft of the script?
Yes, according to The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond by Lee Pfeiffer and Philip Lisa published by Citadel Press 1992, the original The Living Daylights script was intended for Roger Moore. They authos descibe the quip as a "Moore-ism" in the book.
#19
Posted 05 September 2003 - 09:10 PM
#20
Posted 05 September 2003 - 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Triton
Yes, according to The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond by Lee Pfeiffer and Philip Lisa published by Citadel Press 1992, the original The Living Daylights script was intended for Roger Moore. They authos descibe the quip as a "Moore-ism" in the book.
That's the way I understand it....the scripts are always tailored for the Bond of the momentm and only tweaked when a new Bond is cast...
Michael France is on record as stating that he wrote his script for "Goldeneye" with Timothy Dalton in mind (and hence he made it very dark and moody)...It was only when Pierce Brosnan was hired that they made it a bit lighter in tone...
#21
Posted 06 September 2003 - 09:44 AM
(Fact fans: Borodin died in 1887)
#22
Posted 06 September 2003 - 01:13 PM
#23
Posted 06 September 2003 - 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Kingdom Come
The Living Daylights could actually be the best written Bond film of the 80's. Roger would have been welcomed in the role once more, but by now he was getting flack from the media [ageism] and the films had started to dip financially, as far as I understand. Even today Roger looks amazing. But this age thing really gets my blood boiling.
Well I hope that we all age as well as Roger Moore. He looks pretty good for a man in his mid-70s.
Regarding the charge of ageism, it started to seem pretty ridiculous in A View to a Kill to have Bond fight and defeat men half his age who were stronger and in their prime and bed women who were twenty-something. I really liked Roger Moore, but I agree with Timothy Dalton when he says that the James Bond role is meant to be played by someone in his mid-thirties to forty.
#24
Posted 07 September 2003 - 04:44 AM
#25
Posted 07 September 2003 - 05:29 AM
#26
Posted 07 September 2003 - 02:01 PM
#27
Posted 07 September 2003 - 04:25 PM
Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
I think Roger is actually the only 007 Actor that could play bond in 1961 all the way until 1989.. any era any age! He can act!! He would just make Bond more wiser with age.
Well Roger was originally considered for Bond in the early 1960s, but he was already committed to The Saint (which was filming at the same time as "Dr. No"...)
#28
Posted 13 September 2003 - 06:49 AM
#29
Posted 13 September 2003 - 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Pussfeller
Just imagine if Roger had gotten the role in 1962 and played all the way from Dr. No to The Living Daylights. Pretty far-fetched, I know, but it's cool to imagine how different the Bond franchise would be today.
true, because it certainly could have happened. I'm glad it didn't though... he was way to babyfaced at the time....
I think that the *slightly* darker mood of TLD could run with Roger.... he had a wide range of acting styles... just he rarely had to use them...lol
...not saying I would want Roger for TLD...
#30
Posted 13 September 2003 - 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Kingdom Come
Why should Bond be in his mid-thirties? If you believe in Bond as almost super human he could easily defeat any age of man.
Several reasons. Principally, the Eon films should never reveal the age of James Bond because it would ruin the continuity and prevent other actors from playing the James Bond role or for the film makers to replace other actors playing serial characters such as Moneypenny. It's better to continue to dye the gray out of Roger Moore's, Timothy Dalton's, and Pierce Brosnan's hair and give Sean Connery a toupe and dye the hairs that show and pretend that James Bond does not age. Also, thank goodness the film makers didn't film the scenes in On Her Majesty's Secret Service that suggested that James Bond's different appearance (from Sean Connery to George Lazenby) was the result of plastic surgery
Also in the Ian Fleming books James Bond's birthdate is revealed to be November 11, 1920 and the first Bond book, Casino Royale, was published in 1951, making the character 31 years of age. Fleming continued to publish James Bond books until his death in 1964, so that is how I derived the mid-thirties to forty age. Yes, I know if James Bond had one mission a year he would have been 44 years of age.
I don't think that the James Bond films should explore James Bond's past because it would instantly date the films. If his birthday was indeed November 11, 1920, he is quite vigorous for someone who is in his eighties. It's better to make each James Bond film contemporary, otherwise the films might become period pieces.
I also don't think it's much fun to explore the topic of natural mortality, or acknowledge that James Bond could die of old age, in the James Bond films. Better to have him forever young and healthy in his mid-thirties and never acknowledge the age of the actor portraying the character. If Roger Moore had played a long-in-the-touth James Bond in The Living Daylights who was facing mandatory retirement, then what age would the new James Bond be and in what year would the new picture occur?