17 replies to this topic

[Dr. Tynan]

Do you mean that Eon had to show that they weren't afraid of McClory and his gang? They had to show that they didn't regard them as (what you might call "Serious competition"? Eon had to show that they didn't respect MClory and his friends?

[Affection]

I think was strategic to keep Moore as well as a matter of not appearing to lose face. If you do something well over a long period of time and you suddenly give up or change direction as soon as somebody copies you, you are clearly going to be seen in a position of weakness. I think it would have given out the wrong signs to the financers and the public to have cast another Bond.

The actual publicity of the casting of a new Bond actor directly after Never Say Never Again would have been overshadowed by negative press speculation that EON had to cast a new Bond in order to compete with the standard set in Connery's return, with a subtext implying that Connery's NSNA was better than the official series. It would look like as soon as the Moore Bonds had competition from Connery, they had to ditch Moore for another actor.

By the same token, if they had cast another James Bond actor for Octopussy, the announcement of the new star would have been overshadowed in the press by Connery's return. The positivity and excitement of casting a new actor would be lost, and however good the new actor would have been, his Bond film would have suffered adverse comparisons with Connery's NSNA and the previous Moore flick.

[freemo]

I think it was just a case of fighting fire with fire. NSNA had an established Bond so EON would have thought it best to go in with an established Bond themselves. I don't think they avioded changing Bonds because ti would 'look weak', I htink they went with Moore because he was there best option, and best chance of slaughtering NSNA, which they did if I'm not mistaken.

[MDSmith]

[quote]Blue Eyes (13 Nov, 2001 03:21 a.m.):
Dalton- Not as Successful quote]

Well he was lined up to do a third, but the legal bit got in the way, I personally like Dalton. I believe he would have been successful in another time and place. Would Pierce have been unsuccessful if he hadn't been doing Remington Steele, I don't know could it have been?

[Simon]

Freemo is correct in his "hard to get" estimation of Moore's negotiations. But I do also remember interviews at the time with Moore saying that it was nice to have done the same number as Connery before bowing out.

[MDSmith]

Let's just say that if it is Never Say Never Again's fault that Roger Moore made a Bond film after FYEO than down with McLory!!!!!

[White Persian]

I'm sure I remember stories in 82/83 to the effect that the "rival" Bond was a real reason why Roger was kept on, despite playing hard ball over money. Oliver Tobias was supposedly on standby in case he didn't sign up, but EON were pretty anxious not to rock the boat.

Incidentally, in some of hisGoldenEye publicity shots, Pierce looks uncannily like Oliver Tobias.

[Blue Eyes]

I guess this is one big theoretical as only people in the know, such as Cubby Broccoli, would actually know the true happenings around Moore's resigning.

Undoubtedly, Moore returned which probably means that his requirments were met. Which would have meant that the producers came to the party.

With that notion in mind. Why did the producers come to the party?

The pre-title sequence in FYEO shows Bond at the grave of his wife Tracy. This was apparently a continuation element. To introduce fans to a new Bond as when the script was being written, it seemed that Moore would not be returning. It's an element very similair to Bond cleaning out his desk in OHMSS and showing elements such as Red Grants watch.

Perhaps the producers came to the party in fear that a new Bond would fail. Afterall history repeats itself

Connery- Successful
Lazenby- Not as Successful
Moore- Successful
Dalton- Not as Successful
Brosnan- Successful

Perhaps the producers (obviously not knowing Dalton or Brosnan) thought that a successor to Moore may not be as successful. If that were the case, the EON series may just stall and die. You have to keep in mind that the same prejudice that exists in mind today amongst some fans, that Connery is the only Bond, very much existed in 1983. Connery was no doubt seen as a big threat.

Moore's appearance after FYEO would have been gaurnteed with the signing of a contract before OP, it would have been a multipicture contract. So with the threat of NSNA and Connery looming it's very possible that Moore only returned to fend off a rival McClory series.

[freemo]

No, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Roger played hard to get with the Producers thougout his entire carrer, getting the best deal possible and all that. If they were reluctant to cast a new Bond, I think it probably had more to do with memories of George Lazenby than with confusion with NSNA and officialness and stuff like that, though it could have been a bit of both.

[Jim]

Although it would be immensely satisfying to say that A View to a Kill is all Kevin McClory's fault as well. A remake of Thunderball leads to a remake of Goldfinger.

Unfortunately, that's "somewhat" tenuous.

Pity.

[Affection]

Looking at it from the producers'/Brocolli's point of view, Connery was immensely ungrateful to them for making him a major star, by returning in an unofficial Bond, having left their Bond films and making excessive demands, and they were not going to let Connery and McClory mess up their Bond franchise.

It could be interpreted as defeat for the official Bond producers if Moore never returned as Bond after Connery had come back. They had no choice but to give Moore the role again. The public may otherwise think that Moore and the official Bond films just couldn't compete against Connery. If they changed the Bond actor it would be seen as reacting to Never Say Never Again, in other words from a position of inferiority and weakness. They had to assert themselves as the official owners of the franchise. Even if Moore had a stroke and was in a wheelchair, they had to have Moore one more time (ok slight exaggeration!).

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

I think roger was using the sean thing to get more money.. good for him!! They needed to go with roger because he was known.. and who doesn't love a head to head battle sean vs roger!!

Roger did a great job acting like he was done and then they pulled him back in as bond for his last 3 films!!

$$$$$$$$

[DLibrasnow]

Really who was out there who could've replaced Roger Moore? Pierce Brosnan was too young in 1982/83 and I think the public would have balked at someone that youthful in the series (plus he was on the telly every week for free with "Remington Steele."

Even in 1986 (when it looked like he might become 007) some of the fanzines and magazines were saying he was too young to play Bond.

One can see no one was out there because in 1986 they picked Timothy Dalton who was the worst of all of the Bond actors.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

isn't it sad that the James Bond movies have turned into "Remington Steele" Movies:(

when u need known actresses to carry a film thats pretty sad.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
isn't it sad that the James Bond movies have turned into "Remington Steele" Movies:(

when u need known actresses to carry a film thats pretty sad.

I wouldn't go that far. But I would point out that Pierce Brosnan has certainly not delivered on the promise he showed in 1995's "Goldeneye" which was (and still is) the best James Bond movie since AVTAK.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

Goldeneye to me is like Star Wars:Episode 1 TPM...

you are sooo pumped to finally see another "bond or star wars".. that your blinded after you see it.. but after sitting there for a day or two.. you think the movie sucked!

I personally don't consider Pierce as james bond.. or his crappy movies a 007 films.

I stopped watching his after I saw his 3rd.. and when he broke the "3rd being the best of that actors run as bond".. I gave up

I am now just waiting until they get rid of this bland supporting actor... He can't even carry a movie on his own.. that why they get/need known females to be bond girls??

The odd thing is.. Pierce is pretty good in EVERYTHING but 007 movies??? I think he gets nervous and thinks "what would sean say or do"..

I'll wait.. I have no reason to see any of pierce's last bond films.. I can wait.. I have Sean ,George,Roger & Timothy's films to enjoy!!

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only

I am now just waiting until they get rid of this bland supporting actor... He can't even carry a movie on his own..  

Yes, Pierce does lack that star power and charisma but "Goldeneye" was a great, fun James Bond movie. The three movies since however have sucked.