42 replies to this topic

[Brian Flagg]

With the largely lightweight content of the Bond films, should they have gone in another direction in 1973 and embraced a more "relevant" tone for the Moore era? Would a faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die jumpstarted the franchise that belonged to a genre that was downright unpopular when portrayed ina heroic light? Could Roger have played Bond with a dark, burned-out, and cynical attitude?

For the silly, escapist second half of the 1970s Rog's Bond many have been just right, but for the gritty, burned-out early 1970s Bond is horribly out of step. Camp and over-the-top silliness amid Watergate and an ineffective British government was irrelevant in an era where political corruption, paranoia, and wiretapping ruled the day. Moore's effete 007 is at odds with films like The Conversation, The Parallax View, and Three Days of the Condor all of which reflected the mistrust of government agencies and the paranoid atmosphere that existed during the early 1970s. Should the Bond films have latched onto the grittiness of those times?

[The sniper was a woman]

With the largely lightweight content of the Bond films, should they have gone in another direction in 1973 and embraced a more "relevant" tone for the Moore era? Would a faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die jumpstarted the franchise that belonged to a genre that was downright unpopular when portrayed ina heroic light? Could Roger have played Bond with a dark, burned-out, and cynical attitude?

For the silly, escapist second half of the 1970s Rog's Bond many have been just right, but for the gritty, burned-out early 1970s Bond is horribly out of step. Camp and over-the-top silliness amid Watergate and an ineffective British government was irrelevant in an era where political corruption, paranoia, and wiretapping ruled the day. Moore's effete 007 is at odds with films like The Conversation, The Parallax View, and Three Days of the Condor all of which reflected the mistrust of government agencies and the paranoid atmosphere that existed during the early 1970s. Should the Bond films have latched onto the grittiness of those times?

In the 70's, Lewis Collins had been cast if I remember, for a darker Bond...But Brocolli had rejected him, according to Euan Lloyd.
"I stayed in his office five minutes, Collins tells the Daily Star in 1982, but it was over for me in seconds. I've heard since he did not love me. It's unfair. He expects a new password Connery's door and there are moreover a few. But I think he closed the door on me. He found me too aggressive."

[David Schofield]

Could Roger have played Bond with a dark, burned-out, and cynical attitude?

As Roger has often made it clear, he never saw any serious credibility in the James Bond character, so one's original reaction, considering Rog's natural light weight acting style, is no way.

But Rog's career was on total wipe out queer street in the early 70's (wasn't he asked to do his own UK TV chat show after the second series of the Persuaders wasn't green lit?) so who knows what he might have been prepared to do do Cubby, Harry and the £££s if EON had chosen the darker route. And he was brilliant in "The Man Who Haunted Himself".

But I'd say no, you couldn't realistically do a serious LALD with Rog in '72. But don't ask me who you could have done it with. I don't see the non-acting talents of Micahel Billington pulling it off, Gavin might have been worth a shout though, but I suspect TD still thought himself, sadly, too young.

[zencat]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

[jaguar007]

In the 70's, Lewis Collins had been cast if I remember, for a darker Bond...But Brocolli had rejected him, according to Euan Lloyd.
"I stayed in his office five minutes, Collins tells the Daily Star in 1982, but it was over for me in seconds. I've heard since he did not love me. It's unfair. He expects a new password Connery's door and there are moreover a few. But I think he closed the door on me. He found me too aggressive."

With all respect to Lewis Collins, there was nothing unfair about it. Broccoli and Saltzman were the producers and had the right to choose who they felt was best for the series. I'm sure there were many actors who were denied the role.

As far a Moore doing a darker, grittier Bond in the early 70s, I think Moore is a far better of an actor than many people give him credit for. He probably would not have preferred to play a darker Bond, but he did have moments that showed he could have done it.

[The sniper was a woman]

Broccoli and Saltzman were the producers and had the right to choose who they felt was best for the series.

They had the right to choose, but they have often did the wrong choices...Raquel Welch for Domino would have been better, Donald Pleasence for Blofeld, a massive and seductive villain as described in the book like being a massive man, roughly weighing 20 stone (280 lbs.), has a black crew-cut hair, black eyes, similar to those of Benito Mussolini's, heavy eyelashes...
Roger Moore in AVTAK was far too old. One of the biggest wrong choice of the series.

http://bondambitions...in-thunderball/

Lewis Collins would have been certainly as good as Lazenby was...

[jaguar007]

Sniper,
I'm not arguing that Broccoli and co did not make some poor choices. I'm not criticizing him as I have never seen him in anything. What I am pointing out was your quote from him in 82 that he felt him not getting Bond was unfair. There is nothing unfair about it. It was totally fair, Broccoli looked at him and rejected him, just like he looked at several other contenders and rejected them as well.

[john.steed]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

You capture my thoughts and feelings exactly. With all the darkness of the time with the end of the Vietnam War and Watergate, the Bonds were such a nice escape.

[MkB]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Very good point Zencat. I've never been a fan of Moore's Bond, but I fully acknowledge his part in the franchise. He was the Bond relevant to his time.

[Doctor Whom]

With the largely lightweight content of the Bond films, should they have gone in another direction in 1973 and embraced a more "relevant" tone for the Moore era? Would a faithful adaptation of Live and Let Die jumpstarted the franchise that belonged to a genre that was downright unpopular when portrayed ina heroic light? Could Roger have played Bond with a dark, burned-out, and cynical attitude?

For the silly, escapist second half of the 1970s Rog's Bond many have been just right, but for the gritty, burned-out early 1970s Bond is horribly out of step. Camp and over-the-top silliness amid Watergate and an ineffective British government was irrelevant in an era where political corruption, paranoia, and wiretapping ruled the day. Moore's effete 007 is at odds with films like The Conversation, The Parallax View, and Three Days of the Condor all of which reflected the mistrust of government agencies and the paranoid atmosphere that existed during the early 1970s. Should the Bond films have latched onto the grittiness of those times?

I'm not sure the Bond films could have made in the same vein as the films you mention. I don't think those sorts of films were Broccoli's bag (Saltzmam was a more adventurous filmmaker, but I'm not sure he would have advocated for a "dark" Condor-esque Bond). As for Moore, he could have pulled it off, I guess, although his nice-guy personna would have been hard to bury.

[Aston V8]

As one who was there at the time, I don't recall anyone asking for a darker, grittier Bond. LALD was not the start of the pendulum swing into a lighter Bond, it was a reaction to the success of DAF after OHMSS. The emphasis on humor had it's start in DAF and carried on into the first Moore vehicle and was embraced by audiences. Guy Hamilton's attempt to make Bond harder in TMWTGG was not a success in my opinion, and TSWLM was a perfect Bond for the time. It wasn't until Moonraker that the approach went too far.

[Jack Rapace]

Sniper,
I'm not arguing that Broccoli and co did not make some poor choices. I'm not criticizing him as I have never seen him in anything. What I am pointing out was your quote from him in 82 that he felt him not getting Bond was unfair. There is nothing unfair about it. It was totally fair, Broccoli looked at him and rejected him, just like he looked at several other contenders and rejected them as well.

You've told B&S have the right to make some choices. He pointed they had made (big) mistakes in the past. It's indeed a big one to have rejected Collins twice. In 1982 ok, but after the big disappointment about TMWTGG too.

[Mr_Wint]

Check out the first VHS release if you want a more gritty LALD. Tune the contrast/brightness to get it as dark as you want.

[jaguar007]

Sniper,
I'm not arguing that Broccoli and co did not make some poor choices. I'm not criticizing him as I have never seen him in anything. What I am pointing out was your quote from him in 82 that he felt him not getting Bond was unfair. There is nothing unfair about it. It was totally fair, Broccoli looked at him and rejected him, just like he looked at several other contenders and rejected them as well.

You've told B&S have the right to make some choices. He pointed they had made (big) mistakes in the past. It's indeed a big one to have rejected Collins twice. In 1982 ok, but after the big disappointment about TMWTGG too.

Again my quote is misunderstood. I'm not arguing what Sniper said, I'm arguing what Collins said in the 1982 interview where Collins felt it was unfair that he did not get Bond. Sniper just posted the quote.

[Safari Suit]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

The thing is I don't think a film era can ever really exclusively be deemed "dark" or "lighthearted", there's usually a dichotomy. This can be seen today; when a film like The Dark Knight becomes a massive hit people are quick to say it's a sign audiences want "dark, serious, intelligent" films, but then the next summer comes along and Transformers 2 is the big hit of the summer and audiences find the lightweight, cheerful tone of Star Trek a breath of fresh air. With the benefit of hindsight I would say early 70s pop culture had a climate of extreme contrast; yes the era is notable for stuff like Dirty Harry, and The French Connection and even serious and gritty movies which were genuine blockbusters like The Godfather and The Exorcist, but it was also the era of The New Seekers, The Osmonds, The Brady Bunch, The Partridge Family etc., and I wouldn't say this side of the culture was absent from the big screen, particularly in the UK where films like On the Buses, Confessions of a Window Cleaner and Up the Chastity Belt were seriously challenging the Bond films for the box office crown.

Having said that, the thought of a Bond film in the vein of early 70s cop/spy thrillers does appeal

[David Schofield]

yes the era is notable for stuff like Dirty Harry,

Having said that, the thought of a Bond film in the vein of early 70s cop/spy thrillers does appeal

Do you REALLY think Dirty Harry is any more serious a thriller than LALD?????




Callahan is equally a ludicrous character as Rog's LALD Bond. Perhaps more so.

Regardless of the lack of tights, we had at least a couple of cartoon heroes against the apparently uniquely 70s angst.

[FLEMINGFAN]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Words of wisdom.
You had to be there back then to appreciate what they were doing and how much of a 'party' the films were against all the other 'serious' stuff that was tossed out in the cinema.
Starting with DOCTOR NO, the Bonds were always 'fun' films (writer Richard Maibaum called them spoofs of the Fleming novels, which were, themselves, spoofs of the real spy world), but they had to lighten up even more to stay popular. What gave 007 staying power was that, after ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, Bond was finally 'over' and the self-depreciation and comedy of the new film, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, was what brought the audience back; and it was an audience, both child and adult, that would have never gone to a Bond film again, even with Sean Connery in it. Like it or not, if all the Bonds were a FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE, the series would have ended by 1971.
The world, at the time we are discussing, was also, desperately, looking for fun and James Bond, as always, delivered.

[David Schofield]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Words of wisdom.
The world, at the time we are discussing, was also, desperately, looking for fun and James Bond, as always, delivered.

Isn't that, though, what we're need in this violently ed up world of today?

And yet we have Craig as a super hard commando with his fancy fighting moves and rock-hard muscles.

If I were a soldier in Afganistan, I'd be insutled: what we need now is a bonkers Roger Moore Bond, then.

[Safari Suit]

yes the era is notable for stuff like Dirty Harry,

Having said that, the thought of a Bond film in the vein of early 70s cop/spy thrillers does appeal

Do you REALLY think Dirty Harry is any more serious a thriller than LALD?????




Callahan is equally a ludicrous character as Rog's LALD Bond. Perhaps more so.

Regardless of the lack of tights, we had at least a couple of cartoon heroes against the apparently uniquely 70s angst.

Well I wasn't necessarily citing Dirty Harry there, however while it's certainly not a benchmark for realism, I'd say it's a somewhat more serious film, yes. There isn't anything along the lines of characters like JW Pepper or Mrs Bell, it was notably violent for its time, and its villain doesn't meet a fate that brings to mind Tom & Jerry. I don't think the issue here is whether or not the characters accurately reflect their real life counterparts.

[David Schofield]

yes the era is notable for stuff like Dirty Harry,

Having said that, the thought of a Bond film in the vein of early 70s cop/spy thrillers does appeal

Do you REALLY think Dirty Harry is any more serious a thriller than LALD?????




Callahan is equally a ludicrous character as Rog's LALD Bond. Perhaps more so.

Regardless of the lack of tights, we had at least a couple of cartoon heroes against the apparently uniquely 70s angst.

Well I wasn't necessarily citing Dirty Harry there, however while it's certainly not a benchmark for realism, I'd say it's a somewhat more serious film, yes. There isn't anything along the lines of characters like JW Pepper or Mrs Bell, it was notably violent for its time, and its villain doesn't meet a fate that brings to mind Tom & Jerry. I don't think the issue here is whether or not the characters accurately reflect their real life counterparts.

But Callahan is as improbably invulnerable as Rog-Bond.

And aren't the "Establishment Figures" - the mayor, senior police officers - as daft as Pepper and Bell, though more subtly so? And as for his "dead meat" partners...

I know I have turned this into a discussion on Harry. But Harry, like Bond, is a fantasy figure in a fantasy world. Just as Clint intended.

[The sniper was a woman]

Roger's Bond is probably the darker Bond of all with Dalton's.

[jaguar007]

Dirty Harry is as improbable of a character as Bond is, but is certainly darker and grittier than Bond

[Safari Suit]

I know I have turned this into a discussion on Harry. But Harry, like Bond, is a fantasy figure in a fantasy world. Just as Clint intended.

Dirty Harry is as improbable of a character as Bond is, but is certainly darker and grittier than Bond

Adding these two points up, I think you can see why Dirty Harry is a reasonable example of the kind of tone and feel an alternate Bond of 73 film in line with the thread's proposal might have had

[AMC Hornet]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Hear, hear.

[Liparus]

Dirty Harry is as improbable of a character as Bond is, but is certainly darker and grittier than Bond

He reminds Craig's OO7.

[Doctor Whom]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Words of wisdom.
You had to be there back then to appreciate what they were doing and how much of a 'party' the films were against all the other 'serious' stuff that was tossed out in the cinema.
Starting with DOCTOR NO, the Bonds were always 'fun' films (writer Richard Maibaum called them spoofs of the Fleming novels, which were, themselves, spoofs of the real spy world), but they had to lighten up even more to stay popular. What gave 007 staying power was that, after ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, Bond was finally 'over' and the self-depreciation and comedy of the new film, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, was what brought the audience back; and it was an audience, both child and adult, that would have never gone to a Bond film again, even with Sean Connery in it. Like it or not, if all the Bonds were a FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE, the series would have ended by 1971.
The world, at the time we are discussing, was also, desperately, looking for fun and James Bond, as always, delivered.

Right on. I can recall going to Bond movies in those days precisely because I wanted to have some fun at the movies.

[Doctor Whom]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

Words of wisdom.
The world, at the time we are discussing, was also, desperately, looking for fun and James Bond, as always, delivered.

Isn't that, though, what we're need in this violently ed up world of today?

And yet we have Craig as a super hard commando with his fancy fighting moves and rock-hard muscles.

If I were a soldier in Afganistan, I'd be insutled: what we need now is a bonkers Roger Moore Bond, then.

I wouldn't be surprised if the producers lightened the series up noticably when they recast Bond (whenever that happens).

[Brian Flagg]

But Bond was a refuge from the dark and gritty in '73. Everything was dark and gritty and cynical and adult in those days. That's why us kids loved Bond. Escapism, fantasy, uncomplicated and heroic. James Bond was our superhero when we had no others (if that's even comprehensible these days).

That's interesting, because the 1960s Bond films were considered a bit risqué. I recall reading--perhaps someone at CBn--that as a child, their parents didn't permit them to see Bond films, so he had to get his secret agent "fix" from the likes of the Man from U.N.CL.E. duo or some other TV spy; Bond movies were considered explicit in their sexual content for that time. However, if audience tastes can evolve then so could Bond.

Bond obviously got pretty comical 007 during the early '70s, and I can see why, as the franchise was a cash cow that was marketed for the masses, rather than the cineaste. The average Bond fan may have been quite a different audience than the one who'd go and see The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor .

[DR76]

For the silly, escapist second half of the 1970s Rog's Bond many have been just right, but for the gritty, burned-out early 1970s Bond is horribly out of step. Camp and over-the-top silliness amid Watergate and an ineffective British government was irrelevant in an era where political corruption, paranoia, and wiretapping ruled the day. Moore's effete 007 is at odds with films like The Conversation, The Parallax View, and Three Days of the Condor all of which reflected the mistrust of government agencies and the paranoid atmosphere that existed during the early 1970s. Should the Bond films have latched onto the grittiness of those times?

Why do fans always dump the escapist tone of the Bond movies, solely on Roger Moore's shoulders? The cartoonish Bond films had been around since 1964's "GOLDFINGER". And Connery went on to do two more, along with "THUNDERBALL". And by the way, Moore has done at least one gritty Bond film with great success - "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" - and two movies that had a mixture of grittiness and fantasy - "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" and "OCTOPUSSY". And in Connery's case, I can only consider one of his Bond movies as solely gritty - namely "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE".

And yet we have Craig as a super hard commando with his fancy fighting moves and rock-hard muscles.

If I were a soldier in Afganistan, I'd be insutled: what we need now is a bonkers Roger Moore Bond, then.

Why? Why on earth would a soldier in Afghanistan be insulted by Craig's take on the Bond character?

[Brian Flagg]

Why do fans always dump the escapist tone of the Bond movies, solely on Roger Moore's shoulders? The cartoonish Bond films had been around since 1964's "GOLDFINGER". And Connery went on to do two more, along with "THUNDERBALL". And by the way, Moore has done at least one gritty Bond film with great success - "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" - and two movies that had a mixture of grittiness and fantasy - "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME" and "OCTOPUSSY". And in Connery's case, I can only consider one of his Bond movies as solely gritty - namely "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE".

Because the topic is about the tone of his early '70s run, so could we stay focused on Moore's early '70s efforts and save the Connery and Craig talk for another time? Thanks!