21 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Obviously this has never happened before, but what if it had? Imagine that after Lazenby did On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, there was a long break before Roger Moore became the next James Bond (Connery never came back, except for Never Say Never Again later on) in Diamonds Are Forever. This would then make Live And Let Die his second James Bond film and so on. How would the public, and yourself personally reacted to it?

All the rest of the aspects of the film would pretty much stay the same, with the exception of introducing Moore as Bond in whatever fashion they chose to do so. Do you think Diamonds Are Forever on the whole would have been better as a Roger Moore film or no?

[freemo]

Not as good. The film works because it's an "event". It wouldn't have the same confidence about it weren't Connery in the lead.

[hrabb04]

The fight scenes would not have been good, since Roger was such a pantywaist. They would have been more like Live and Let Die--in one word: pathetic. If not Connery in this movie, give it to Lazenby.

[Genrewriter]

I think the humor would have worked just fine but the film really needed Connery since one tends to picture his Bond fighting SPECTRE and Blofeld.

[Bondian]

There was nothing wrong with Roger fight scenes in Live and Let Die

I agree with Freemo, Diamonds are Forever It WAS an event because it was Connery's comeback. However, he did seem to sleepwalk through this one.

It was refreshing when Roger took over in 1973 because it was he who made me like these movies, and made me understand what Connery was about.

Cheers,


Ian

[Hitch]

Much as I like Roger Moore's performances as Bond, I prefer Connery because he is physically intimidating. In a fight, who would you want on your side out of all the actors who have played 007? In the early films, Connery has a big pair of shoulders and moves with an athletic grace; a legacy from his bodybuilding and footballing days which pays off in the way he walks, never mind fights. He also has that air of cruelty which is a part of Fleming's 007. Connery also had the advantage, in my humble opinion, of being in much better films. It's a shame that he didn't bother to stay fit for DAF, but he still looks tough. All of Connery's fights look dangerous.

Roger Moore looks good in Live and Let Die but unfortunately got far too creaky in his later films. All the other actors had a good stab at it, but I think Dalton and Brosnan suffer from being too short.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

DAF is pretty much a Roger Moore film, the only difference being the fact that Connnery is playing Bond.

And freemo pretty much got it when he said that DAF is an "event" film. I doubt it would have had as much attention drawn to it if it was "only" Morore's first.

[TheSaint]

Well, had Roger been in DAF, we would've had a Bond that was in shape, and no musical toupees. As for the fight scenes, anyone who has seen Roger in The Saint knows he can do great fight scenes, when he is given a great fight scene.

[Antiriad]

Yes in style DAF was very much a Roger Moore film. Youd have only needed to have changed the fight with Peter Franks slightly and things would have been fine.

Much as I like Sean Connery, he looked AWFUL in DAF being so fat and unmanicured(not to mention his phoned in performance) whearas Roger would have looked great in it.

[Qwerty]

Well, had Roger been in DAF, we would've had a Bond that was in shape, and no musical toupees. As for the fight scenes, anyone who has seen Roger in The Saint knows he can do great fight scenes, when he is given a great fight scene.

I could see the Bambi and Thumper fight being more of a Roger Moore styled fight scene as well. Albeit, it is pretty fun with Connery.

[Brian Flagg]

Interesting topic, since I don't usually go for "What If?" threads.

If Roger debuted with DAF, then there would be no way he could "share the blame" I.E. Making the series comical and jokey. If anything, Connery's reputation would be even more legendary, because we fans would say: "Bond was best in the 1960s when Connery played him. After Moore took over in the 1970s, it became total crap." Just a theory, since this is "What If?"

As for Sean's "dialed in" performance in DAF, I disagree. Just watching the Klaus Hergesheimer bit in the lab makes it all worthwhile. His YOLT performance was dreary and uninteresting and is his worst in the series. Although, even that performance would look like THUNDERBALL-caliber stuff compared to the goofiness Roger would have brought to DAF. LALD was a better debut, as he at least added some edge to his performance in that film, which I'm really warming up to after all these years (along with TMWTGG)...

[Turn]

As for Sean's "dialed in" performance in DAF, I disagree. Just watching the Klaus Hergesheimer bit in the lab makes it all worthwhile. His YOLT performance was dreary and uninteresting and is his worst in the series.  Although, even that performance would look like THUNDERBALL-caliber stuff compared to the goofiness Roger would have brought to DAF.  LALD was a better debut, as he at least added some edge to his performance in that film, which I'm really warming up to after all these years (along with TMWTGG)...

Completely agree on this. Hearing people say Connery isn't motivated in this film is getting tired. I've always read he was very relaxed on this set as opposed to many of the other films in the series. It was going by his pace and it shows. I also think it's interesting to note his taking a less serious approach to the character as something of an acting stretch for Connery.

[Brian Flagg]

Right, Turn. And there's the fact that the one million dollar payroll for his beloved Scottish charity was in the bank, too. Love that caring, giving Sean, don't you?

Edited by Brian Flagg, 30 November 2004 - 09:03 PM.

[Qwerty]

Completely agree on this. Hearing people say Connery isn't motivated in this film is getting tired. I've always read he was very relaxed on this set as opposed to many of the other films in the series. It was going by his pace and it shows. I also think it's interesting to note his taking a less serious approach to the character as something of an acting stretch for Connery.

How do you compare the performance to that in Thunderball?

[Qwerty]

Can we end this thread? It's going nowhere and is a bit like saying Would Dr No suit Dalton??? etc etc

You don't have to post in it if you don't wish to.

I don't see a problem with this thread.

[Qwerty]

Yes in style DAF was very much a Roger Moore film. Youd have only needed to have changed the fight with Peter Franks slightly and things would have been fine.

Oh? I actually could see Roger Moore in that fight.

[Genrewriter]

As for Sean's "dialed in" performance in DAF, I disagree. Just watching the Klaus Hergesheimer bit in the lab makes it all worthwhile. His YOLT performance was dreary and uninteresting and is his worst in the series.  Although, even that performance would look like THUNDERBALL-caliber stuff compared to the goofiness Roger would have brought to DAF.  LALD was a better debut, as he at least added some edge to his performance in that film, which I'm really warming up to after all these years (along with TMWTGG)...

Completely agree on this. Hearing people say Connery isn't motivated in this film is getting tired. I've always read he was very relaxed on this set as opposed to many of the other films in the series. It was going by his pace and it shows. I also think it's interesting to note his taking a less serious approach to the character as something of an acting stretch for Connery.

I agree, his performance is a lot more relaxed but then again DAF is a much more relaxed movie compared to YOLT. He certainly seems to be having fun, especially the bit before the elevator fight. The fake accent just makes me laugh, good stuff.

[Brian Flagg]

[quote name='Dr Blockbuster' date='3 December 2004 - 23:17'][quote name='Brian Flagg' date='30 November 2004 - 22:03']Right, Turn.

[mccartney007]

Well, had Roger been in DAF, we would've had a Bond that was in shape, and no musical toupees. As for the fight scenes, anyone who has seen Roger in The Saint knows he can do great fight scenes, when he is given a great fight scene.

Well, Roger was never really "in-shape." He was always a bit flabby.

Regardless, Roger is great in fight scenes like you said. I always enjoy watching him fight in The Persuaders! and The Saint and in Bond.

[hrabb04]

Witness Roger and the thugs in the alley in Harlem. They are practically falling down before he even "hits" them. He also has a comical reaction to being knocked out before being taken out to the farm. When Whisper carries him out, that always cracks me up. Moore just wasn't 007 to me.

[mccartney007]

Witness Roger and the thugs in the alley in Harlem.  They are practically falling down before he even "hits" them.  He also has a comical reaction to being knocked out before being taken out to the farm.  When Whisper carries him out, that always cracks me up.  Moore just wasn't 007 to me.

That's fine if Moore wasn't 007 to you, but you're basing your opinion on one or two instances in one film out of the seven he did. That's a tad unfair, I think. I happen to think Connery's reaction to being hit by Oddjob while he's at the fridge in Goldfinger is a bit lame.

I will say that I like Moore better as Brett Sinclair and Simon Templar than I do as Bond. I think he was a very good Bond, though, too.

[TheSaint]

Well, Roger was never really "in-shape." He was always a bit flabby.


Flabby? He may not have been as toned as Sean was in Dr.No but, I don't think Roger was ever flabby during his Bond tenure. Wiry, yes. You want to see flab, check out Connery as he's about to knock Jill St.John's boots in DAF-that's major league flab.