36 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I've just been listening to the latest NowPlayPresents James Bond retrospective, and something that's always been in the back of my mind is the thought of Roger being Bond from Dr No, right up to A View To A Kill. We know that Fleming did want Roger originally, but he wasn't approached. Just say though, what if things were different, and they approached Roger for Dr No, and he accepted. How would this change Bond now? Would the series still be going on? If one Bond actor played Bond for 14 James Bond movies in a row, would the producers end when Roger quits? Not wanting to get a new Bond?

Don't get me wrong. I love Connery, and I think he's by far the best James Bond, but Roger Moore will always my favourite. He's my Bond. i grew up with him. Roger can play serious extremely well. (The Man Who Haunted Himself, The Naked Face), now just imagine, a serious Bond from Dr No to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Bond gets married, and looses his wife, we have a dark follow up with Diamonds Are Forever, and then we see Bond evolve into a rather... comedic agent. It would be quite startling. If we had the same Bond throughout the Connery, Lazenby and Moore era. We could actually get the chance to see the character evolve.

Saying that though. I'm sure the only reason Rogers Bond was light hearted, was because they didn't want to mimick Connery. They did that with Lazenby and (apparently) failed. So would Live and Let Die, Rogers original debut, be light hearted at all? Would the series go darker instead of lighter? Bond turning into a colder bastard than he already was over the death of his wife?

Discuss.

[crheath]

I couldn't see Roger Moore doing that scene where he kills Professor Dent.

[DamnCoffee]

I couldn't see Roger Moore doing that scene where he kills Professor Dent.

I can actually. I admit not as good as Connery. I personally think Moore is an extremely underrated actor. It's a shame he's seen as well... a joke. He can do serious very well infact.

[seawolfnyy]

I couldn't see Roger Moore doing that scene where he kills Professor Dent.

What about when he coldly plans to shoot Rosie Carver? Or threatens to break Andrea's arm? Or kicks Locque off the cliff? I think Rog could easily pull it off. Also, I thought Broccoli/Saltzman considered Moore, but felt that he looked too young....and so cast an actor younger. Go figure.

[L4YRCAKE]

Actually, my understanding was that Ian Fleming had David Niven in mind originally, no idea if he was approached, but Roger Moore was approached and had to decline because he was under contract for The Saint, I think...?

I think one could argue that maybe Roger Moore could have been a more physical Bond had he started when he was younger, but I do think Sean Connery's physicality was something he brought to the role that Fleming at first disagreed with and then warmed to and wrote his novels more in line with and became a central part of the character.

I love Roger Moore's movies, I think they are absolutely fantastic, but Connery probably did round out the character in a way Fleming hadn't considered, and caused Moore to play the character differently than he would have naturally. In other words, it's quite possible that Bond and The Saint could have been almost indistinguishable, and not had that edge that separates Bond from other action heroes.

With that said, I think first and foremost what I like about Craig's Bond is it hearkens back to the roots and spirit of Fleming's character, but I've come to realize that a certain amount of the physicality started with Connery, although I do think Craig is taking that to a whole different level, more along the lines of Steve McQueen, which is awesome. All those washed up so-called action heroes in The Expendables don't add up to one single performance by Steve McQueen, Bruce Lee, or Daniel Craig. Yeah, I said it.

Specifically though, Roger Moore carried and adapted Bond perfectly into the 70's and 80's in a way that showed that other actors could carry the torch and not necessarily ape Connery. He showed that the character could evolve with the times and not become dated; it's quite possible that the character's lineage could have ended with a lesser actor, and nobody wants that!

[AMC Hornet]

If one Bond actor played Bond for 14 James Bond movies in a row, would the producers end when Roger quits? Not wanting to get a new Bond?

...now just imagine, a serious Bond from Dr No to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Bond gets married, and looses his wife, we have a dark follow up with Diamonds Are Forever, and then we see Bond evolve into a rather... comedic agent. It would be quite startling. If we had the same Bond throughout the Connery, Lazenby and Moore era. We could actually get the chance to see the character evolve.

I can't see it going that way at all.

First, no one 'ends' producing a successful movie series.

Second, say Roger is happy to do seven films, which become increasingly comical, then he's replaced by...whom? Timothy Dalton, perhaps? LALD becomes the film some now wish it had been, TMWTGG is darker still, calling for a lightening up, like we got with TSWLM. Etc.

The real question for me is: who would have played The Saint?

(BTW, there's only one 'o' in 'loses', dammit!)

[Binyamin]

James Bond would not have endured for all those years with one actor. Part of Bond's longevity has been the anticipation of each new actor in the role. Changing the lead every few years keeps the films fresh.

Look at, say, the Mission Impossible or Bourne films: With one lead actor, they quickly become stale after three or four outings. Would you watch two DECADES of Damon as Bourne or Cruise as Hunt? I wouldn't. And I bet people would quickly tire of Roger Moore in the same role for 20 years.

In a way, the requirement for Bond to change actors was a "happy accident" that has sustained the series beyond its normal shelf life.

[jaguar007]

I don't mean this as in insult to Moore, but I doubt the Bond series would have been as successful as it was without
Connery. Especially in the US market, Connery was a new type of moviestar. Moore, I'm afraid would just have been another English pretty boy and largely overlooked in the US. When asked why the Bond films were so successful, Terrence Young replied "3things, Connery,Connery and Connery"

[Dustin]

The question is really two-for-one: what if the series had started with Moore, and what if one single actor had been the leading man for over twenty years.

I suppose had Moore been cast by Eon in 1962 that move would have changed his later image drastically. Before THE SAINT he also had been Beau Maverick and of course IVANHOE, both roles far from the ruthless and cold killer type Bond was depicted as in the early films, but his profile by then would not have prevented him from becoming Bond in DR NO. At a guess he would have been seen as being capable of harder characters by the audience. For Bond it would probably have meant the character was depicted more 'English' and would have most likely prevented later attempts at casting actors without this particular streak. I even suppose Connery would not have had a chance to get the role had Moore been the first Bond.

As for one single actor keeping the role for such a long time, no I don't think that would have been possible. Thanks to Charles Helfenstein we know about Eon's efforts to keep Lazenby on deck for an extremely long range contract. But whether or not all these subsequent films would really have starred Lazenby is an entirely different question. The one actor who has been connected with the role for this long is Connery. And it's doubtful if people had wanted to see him in NSNA had he been on screen every other year as Bond between 1971 and 1983.

[Jim]

For those of us such as myself and Mark O'Connell - he of the seminal Catching Bullets - it did all start with Roger Moore anyway. The joy of the general absence of continuity over the course of the series is that you can pitch in at any point. Glorious.

[marktmurphy]

I have no doubt that the Bond series would have been just as successful if Roger had started it. He may have hung around for quite a while too, although it's possible he may have had his fill before '85 if he'd started in '62.
Roger's Bond films were insanely popular and successful, there's nothing to say that Bond wouldn't have worked if he'd kicked the series off. Bond isn't something that requires continuity: if Skyfall is to be your first Bond film I'm sure you'd think 'who is this James Bond fella? This is great!'. Whoever starts it it doesn't really matter: it's all good.
The Saint was massive too: he could have done it, no problem. It'd be different, sure; as we know the producers were slightly surprised that people laughed at Dr No- with Roger on board I expect they may have played that way more to start with.

As it is I'm glad we had both Sean and Roger as Bond is richer for it.

Interesting idea for a thread, though.

[S K Y F A L L]

I don't think I would be as interested in Bond if it was Roger Moore from the start but I think it could have lasted just not as successful. Its always interesting to discuss, I was just reading a 8 year old thread about what If Dalton started in OHMSS.

[L4YRCAKE]

I don't think I would be as interested in Bond if it was Roger Moore from the start but I think it could have lasted just not as successful. Its always interesting to discuss, I was just reading a 8 year old thread about what If Dalton started in OHMSS.

This whole topic really is interesting, because the reality is that Fleming had someone different in mind than Connery when they cast him, also they'd tried unsuccessfully to start a Bond tv show before the films, Bond could have gone so many different routes and ways, it could have not only started with Roger Moore but it could also have started in a totally different order, like what if Thunderball was the first film? I may be wrong but I think that was the first screenplay written, only to be shelved and filmed years later? And the book order is completely different than the films, Moonraker could have been Moore's From Russia With Love. Or what if Moore decided to take a more comedic approach and that stuck and the films could be regarded today as funny lighthearted adventures?

Some characters/films/stories are completely the vision of one person, but Bond is such a perfect storm of what one person started and another went and added their touch, just as Craig and Mendes seem to be doing currently. It's pretty amazing 50 years later for Bond to have evolved into the legend he has become.

[s.a.s. Malko]

Can you imagine RM judodropping the chauffeur and shooting the doctor in cold blood after he slept with his assistant? Fighting with Red Grant for his life? Come on, you must be joking. They wouldn´t even made it to Goldfinger

[L4YRCAKE]

Can you imagine RM judodropping the chauffeur and shooting the doctor in cold blood after he slept with his assistant? Fighting with Red Grant for his life? Come on, you must be joking. They wouldn´t even made it to Goldfinger

I disagree, Bond pulling a gun on Rosie in Live And Let Die is one of the most cold-blooded moments in Bond history. I'll give you that he may not have matched up physically with Robert Shaw, then again what if they'd cast Richard Kiel as Red Grant instead? Simply put, Roger Moore's Bonds had he been in the same roles as Connery would possibly have been much more cartoony, which still could have been wildly popular, more Moonrakers and less From Russia With Love's in other words. Personally, I can love Roger Moore and still thank god for the latter.

And I don't think there's even a question that Roger Moore would not have stuck with the role for 20 years had he been the original Bond. I'd say a good guess as to the reason why he stuck with it for so long is because he was getting older, the movies were popular as ever (but he was typecast by then, I'm sorry to say), and he realized that retiring as Bond probably meant retiring as an actor, which was not the same case for Connery in 1971.

And I'll very gently and respectfully add that Moore was pretty well on when he started as Bond, it's to his credit that he aged as gracefully as he did, which I think had a lot to do with not only good genes but also his unparalleled gentlemanly demeanor. I'll never forget seeing his liver spots in Moonraker and thinking, 'my grandpa has those!' and still being riveted as he threw Drax's assassin out a glass window and into a piano below for the hundredth time.

[seawolfnyy]

I do agree that he aged very well and doesn't look at all 45 in Live and Let Die. In fact, he really doesn't start to show his age until Octopussy....at 56 (55 during filming). The scene I most closely compare from Rog's era to the killing of the doctor in Dr. No is not pulling the gun on Rosie, but when he kicks Locque's car off the cliff in For Your Eyes Only. I think it's one of the 3 most heartless kills Bond makes in all 22 films. Locque is almost begging for his life and Bond forcibly kicks him to his death for killing Luigi. I also agree too that if Moore had started there is no way he would've made it to AVTAK. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing the same role for 14 films. On the other hand, we might've gotten Dalton earlier....

[SecretAgentFan]

I guess it all came together as it should have. Connery was the perfect first embodiment and had that sardonic, raw, intimidating, macho quality that put Bond on the map.

I love Sir Roger´s work and he was my first Bond, too, so you won´t find me say anything bad about him. But he was a totally different Bond. And I don´t think that his interpretation would have worked in the 60´s. So if he had started Bond I guess we would not be talking right now because the series would have ended after a few films.

Maybe they would be rebooted now, of course.

[Guy Haines]

At risk of stating the blindingly obvious - if Roger Moore had been Bond from Dr No all the way through the 1960s and 70s, I doubt we would have got Connery (or Lazenby) as Bond. Unless Roger became as bored with the role as Sean did by the time of YOLT (unlikely, but you never know) there would have been no need for a replacement Bond for OHMSS. And Sean Connery would have gone on to be a respected film, TV and stage actor, quite possibly a star in his own right, but not through Bond. Looking at Sean Connery in the real world 1970s, I could see him making a comeback as Bond, but in this alternate universe we are posting about, I would have been surprised if he had been hired as Moore's successor. Indeed, if Roger Moore had carried on from the 1960s well into the 1970s, I doubt very much that a mid to late 40s Connery would have been in the running. A younger replacement would have been needed.

The already mentioned George Lazenby? Well, he'd been badly advised that Bond was finished after just one go at the role. Would he have gone for it in this parallel universe? Who knows, but other actors were available in the 1970s. I agree with those posts mentioning Timothy Dalton. By the mid to late 1970s, he'd be nearer the right age for Bond. And it would have given the producers the reason for an early "reboot" of the series. We might have got the "Bond's first mission" film decades before Casino Royale, except that with the rights to that film held elsewhere, it would have been some other Bond story. How about Dalton as Bond facing a villain planning to fire a missile into the heart of London? It would have made for a very different take on "Moonraker" in 1979.

Frankly, I'm glad we got the Bond actors in the order that we did. Connery's casting was inspired in the 1960s, and Moore was the obvious choice, for me at least, to carry the flame in the 1970s - in spite of being older than Connery, he didn't appear to be. And I think it would have been a loss for the viewing public not to have seen Roger Moore in the other role for which he is renowned, as The Saint.

[seawolfnyy]

Frankly, I'm glad we got the Bond actors in the order that we did. Connery's casting was inspired in the 1960s, and Moore was the obvious choice, for me at least, to carry the flame in the 1970s - in spite of being older than Connery, he didn't appear to be. And I think it would have been a loss for the viewing public not to have seen Roger Moore in the other role for which he is renowned, as The Saint.

I would definitely agree with that. The only misfire might've been Connery in Diamonds Are Forever. The script was bad and Connery didn't seem interested during the whole movie. If only Lazenby hadn't taken his agent's bad advice....

[Pam Bouvier]

Actually, my understanding was that Ian Fleming had David Niven in mind originally, no idea if he was approached, but Roger Moore was approached and had to decline because he was under contract for The Saint, I think...?

I recall reading that somewhere too. Always thought it would have been fun to see Niven play a serious Bond, as opposed to the slapstick versions we saw in the first CR. At the time, Niven was the personification of the debonaire Brit. His age might have become a problem, given that Bond starts out as a man in his 30's, but I can see why Fleming thought him to be a good candidate for the role.

When I watch a Bond film I sometimes wonder what one of the other Bond actors would have brought to the role. Especially with OHMSS.

Nothing against Lazenby. I think he did a fine job. Just always thought the story should have been told with an established Bond actor in the role. I like the idea of consistancy and following the history that Fleming set up for the character. Had Coonery contined in the role would the film have been better recieved? Nobody will ever know, but it's a thought I've had more than once.

Samething with the beating Dalton took with TLDL and LTK. Would Moore have been subject to those same criticisms if he'd taken the character in a darker direction (and yes, I agree with previous posters that Moore DID take Bond in that direction in LALD)? Would have been fun to see Moore and Hedison together again in LTK for continuity's sake if nothing else.

But those of you that said changing actors adds to the series and may be even is part of the reason the series has lasted so long make valid points.

The sad fact is it takes too long to make a Bond film. No actor could remain young enough to be believable in the role over the course of the series. I loved Tim Dalton in the role and wish he'd played Bond in several of the earlier films (OHMSS, FRW, and LALD would have been even more fun for me if Dalton had been in the role) as well as a few that came after his time (like Goldeneye and CR). But it's unrealistic.

I like Roger Moore in The Persuaders! and The Saint. He did a fine job with Bond. It's interesting to think about how the series might have been different if he'd been given the role in Dr. No, but I think you guys are right. Even if Roger started the series, it's doubtful he would have stayed in the role up to and including AVTAK.

[marktmurphy]

Can you imagine RM judodropping the chauffeur and shooting the doctor in cold blood after he slept with his assistant? Fighting with Red Grant for his life? Come on, you must be joking. They wouldn´t even made it to Goldfinger

I can imagine those things quite easily: he does very similar things in his movies. Probably because he plays the same character as Connery did.

I guess it all came together as it should have. Connery was the perfect first embodiment and had that sardonic, raw, intimidating, macho quality that put Bond on the map.

I love Sir Roger´s work and he was my first Bond, too, so you won´t find me say anything bad about him. But he was a totally different Bond. And I don´t think that his interpretation would have worked in the 60´s. So if he had started Bond I guess we would not be talking right now because the series would have ended after a few films.

And yet he played it pretty much the same as he played The Saint in the 60's, and that was hugely popular. I see no reason why it would have failed.

[Dustin]

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding re Moore's general ability to play or accept roles with a distinctively ruthless and coldblooded character. That's never been the case. Moore argued about the Loque scene because he felt it didn't gel with the way he had established his Bond until then. Just take a look at THE WILD GEESE - he forces a pusher and his bodyguard at gunpoint to eat heroin laced with strychnine, he shoots various adversaries in the back with a silenced Colt, he's part of an operation where a whole barracks is gassed. Of course he could have done everything Connery did, probably even worse.

[s.a.s. Malko]

Can you imagine RM judodropping the chauffeur and shooting the doctor in cold blood after he slept with his assistant? Fighting with Red Grant for his life? Come on, you must be joking. They wouldn´t even made it to Goldfinger

I can imagine those things quite easily: he does very similar things in his movies. Probably because he plays the same character as Connery did.
PB and DC play the same character too. Nobody thinks that Brosnans Bond could have done the same things physically like Daniel Craigs Bond. Nobody who saw the same movies from Dr. No to AVTAK can say that RM was as intimidating as SC with his fight scenes or oozing this animal-like magnetismn that Connery made Bond the man every woman wants to be with. FYEO, TSHLM and even 2/3 of MR are in my TOP 10 too, but no sane person can think that RM could have established to reimagine the Actionhero from the 50s into something like the worldwide phenomenon James Bond became with the first three films

I guess it all came together as it should have. Connery was the perfect first embodiment and had that sardonic, raw, intimidating, macho quality that put Bond on the map.

I love Sir Roger´s work and he was my first Bond, too, so you won´t find me say anything bad about him. But he was a totally different Bond. And I don´t think that his interpretation would have worked in the 60´s. So if he had started Bond I guess we would not be talking right now because the series would have ended after a few films.

And yet he played it pretty much the same as he played The Saint in the 60's, and that was hugely popular. I see no reason why it would have failed.

[Colossus]

I think when asked to Moore would definitely do the dent execution, it may seem disollusional to many (ie "only CONNERYMAN could do this!!!") but a lot of acts of violence can be replicated by any actor effectively. It's their non-violent acts that really make a difference.

[Yellow Pinky]

Just take a look at THE WILD GEESE - he forces a pusher and his bodyguard at gunpoint to eat heroin laced with strychnine, he shoots various adversaries in the back with a silenced Colt, he's part of an operation where a whole barracks is gassed. Of course he could have done everything Connery did, probably even worse.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dustin on this. Everyone is looking at this in the wrong direction, seeing Moore as we know him as Bond and projecting that persona into the early films. However, in '62 and onward, Moore would have received the same on-set direction as Connery. There was no overarching perception of Moore as anything Bondian since his making Dr. No would have kept him from making The Saint. Prior to that he was just a bit actor in a handful of feature films, but primarily know for his work on Maverick and in Ivanhoe, which by no means would seem to qualify him for the role of Bond.

Personally,I think he could have pulled off the ruthlessness, but in a different manner than Connery did. To me, Connery always came off as a brutal man who was very sophisticated. I think Moore would have come off as a very sophisticated man who was capable of brutality. A slight difference, but a marked one to me. That said, I'm glad things worked out as they did. But it is fun to play these "what if" games!

[L4YRCAKE]

To me, Connery always came off as a brutal man who was very sophisticated. I think Moore would have come off as a very sophisticated man who was capable of brutality.

That's a very adept and precise way to put it, sums it up in a nutshell really. It does seem like there is a chance that had Connery not set a precedence that Moore's Bond could have just ended up another Our Man Flynt, but who really knows? With the 50th anniversary, it'd be great to see these actors come out and get asked these questions directly, perhaps all in the same setting or stage, but I can't convince myself to get my hopes up too much.

I really think though, that Craig's Bond has taken both the sophistication and the brutality and given it a new dimension that is giving the character new legs. The scene in Casino Royale when he's tying his shoes at the resort and gets mistaken as a servant and crashes the guy's car into the parking lot is a watershed moment in Bond history in my mind. It seem for the first time in Bond we are seeing an upper class that cannot function in real life and a Bond that can easily masquerade as one of them, conversely. And that's a direct trait from screwball comedies of the Depression. It's brilliant.

[thecasinoroyale]

Connery just set the template for other actors to follow - if Moore had been in the role from 'Dr.No', he would have set his own template - simple as that, and fans would warm to him as the character.

Don't forget it's not just 007 himself that sells the film, it would have the same exotic locations, the same memorable characters, the gadgets, music etc, and Roger Moore would simply add to the winning factor.

I know his portrayal of Bond in the official timeline was more laid back, more humourous and more humane but he wasn't playing a buffoon or a clown with a gun, he was a secret agent who did his job.

We remember him being old in 'A View To A Kill', or dressed as a clown in 'Octopussy' and the cheesy puns BUT it's easy to forget him as Bond:

- Hitting and twisting Andrea's arm in 'The Man With The Golden Gun'
- Using Felicca as a human sheild upon her letting slip in 'The Spy Who Loved Me'
- Shooting Stromberg 4 times at close range also in 'TSWLM'
- Kicking Locque's car off the cliff in 'For Your Eyes Only'
- Avenging 009 in 'Octopussy'
- His general cold killings and no hesitation in doing his job

Roger Moore would have been a great, humane James Bond from 'Dr.No' and it would be interesting to see his interpretation of the character earlier on. He could easily shoot Dent twice, as he did Stromberg 4 times, he would be at ease with the gadgetry and vechicles and be as ruthless as Connery to save his own skin and get the job done.

[BoogieBond]

To be honest. I cannot even envisage Moore taking the role in 1962, and even less seeing him play the role until 1985.
But going with it, Dr No and FRWL would have been very different, even assuming he played Bond more straight up (say in his FYEO/TMWGG performances) I can't imagine the producers would not want to take advantages of his comedic timing and wit in the role. Connery's first 4 films speak for themselves in terms of quality, and Connery himself is a huge part of that. From Goldfinger onwards, certainly Moore could have pulled it off, but how different would his interpretation be, his more gentlemenly qualities and smoothness, rather than Connery's rough, tough demenour would have been a big contrast. Moore was pretty ruthless and deadly in the role, but could you see him with the same tough physicality as Connery. I am not sure whether TB would have been filmable unless Rog went on a serious fitness regime. Looking back I think he could have pulled it off, but glad we got the actors(Connery and Moore) when we did. Connery was perfect for 60's Bond and Rog just fits 70s Bond so well.

[Trevelyan 006]

I look at it this way: Sure, Moore could have started the series off. He could have done them quite well, I have no doubt.

BUT, the way I always like to picture the early character of Bond as, a ridged gem with Connery, A cut stone with Lazenby and A polished gem with Moore. If the order had been different, I'm not sure exactly if it would have been as effective. If Moore started first, It occurs to me that perhaps Connery wouldn't have played Bond at all.

I say, Live and Let Live. The order is right by me.

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 13 September 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[elizabeth]

I finally have something to say about this.

I feel like he could have done well starting off the series, given his experience and reputation with The Saint. I don't know if it would have fit, per se, but I can see him in it, somehow.