23 replies to this topic

[ChandlerBing]

After spending way too much time in the Dalton forums last year and part of this one, I got to wondering something about the tenure of Roger Moore. Was he ever in danger of being dumped following the lackluster performance of The Man With The Golden Gun? Something about these Bonds and their sophomore outings...Connery seemed to be the only one who got away with it. Sure, Tomorrow Never Dies made tons of money, but it's still one of those either you love it or you hate it movies like Dalton's and Moore's second outings.

[Bryce (003)]

As has been my understanding, Roger was signed for LALD and then signed for the next two after they we're in production. FYEO was tossed around as following TMWTGG for a bit, but then the idea's for TSWLM and SPECTRE returning came about.

They (Eon) were pretty set on the notion of giving their new Bond an old adversary - Of course Kevin McClory had to get pissy again.

[ChandlerBing]

Kevin "I Invented the Question Mark" McClory......ugh.

[zencat]

Yes, what is it about #2 movies?

No, Moore was in no danger of being "dumped" after TMWTGG. That wasn't the way Cubby ran his show. If a movie underperformed, Cubby blamed himself, not the actor, and he worked to make the next one bigger and better and a hit. It worked.

[ChandlerBing]

I didn't mean Cubby dumping Roger. I mean, would UA have dumped him? With DAF onward, they had a lot of say about Bond.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

I always wondered.. who in the hell you/THEY blamed Dalton for the failure of License to Kill??

TO this day They NEVER have put another Bond movie in the summer????? If Pierce is sooo great dont hide him in the fall! Put his against : The Matrix reloaded, Hulk, X Men:2

Because thats what basically License to Kill was up against (Batman Indy 3, Star Trek , Lethal Weapon..)

But some how they dont blame themselves for the failure of License to Kill.. they blame the Actor?

which totally proves it is NOT putting another Bond Film in the Summer. Which means it was THIER fault.. not Dalton.

I am the biggest Roger fan!! BUT Dalton would have been the best bond! in only 2 movies, he was on his way! Give him only 2 more.. he would have been the best!

I can't believe that they fired Dalton and picked up Pierce? wow

Dalton's were all a new spin.. Pierce's are all "remember the past"/a groupie for Sean.. you hired a groupie to play james bond or should I say to play sean connery

[JackChase007]

While I agree with you on the fact that Dalton shouldn't be blamed for any problems people have with Licence To Kill (although, to be honest, I don't see what's so wrong with it, really), I could not disagree more over Brosnan. Pierce has done a fantastic job, and while Dalton ranks up there in Bond performances, I think Pierce is better. Although he claims that Connery is the model for Bond, his Bond is much more - he is certainly more dramatic and emotionally deep than Connery (Sean never pulled anything that Pierce did in TWINE).

[Dunph]

For UR Eyez Only:
I can't believe that they fired Dalton and picked up Pierce

They didn't fire Dalton at all, EON were all set to make another film with him come 1993, when GoldenEye fired up, but he decided to walk away from the franchise, as he felt it had too much of a hold on him, and he wanted to move onto other things.

A decision he probably shouldn't have made, as I haven't seen him in much recently besides the odd US TV movie.

[brendan007]

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
I always wondered.. who in the hell you/THEY blamed Dalton for the failure of License to Kill??

TO this day They NEVER have put another Bond movie in the summer????? If Pierce is sooo great dont hide him in the fall! Put his against : The Matrix reloaded, Hulk, X Men:2

Because thats what basically License to Kill was up against (Batman Indy 3, Star Trek , Lethal Weapon..)

its not like theres no competition in the fall to worry about. pierce's bond movies have gone up against some pretty big movies and done extremely well (titanic, harry potter, lotr). it wasnt just the tough competition that made LTK fail, it was the film itself.

[1q2w3e4r]

I think your missing the point. Tomorrow Never Dies wasn't in direct competition for patrons. People who were going to see Titanic most likely weren't tossing up between it and TND. And those that couldn't get in probably went to see TND as an alternative. If anything Titanic helped the gross on it.

LTK however went up against action adventure films which the OO7 series is, it was put in direct competiton for the same share of the market.

[ChandlerBing]

Well, let's see if I recall the summer of 89...
July 13th I think was the day LTK came out. I know because I saw it opening night and went back and saw it on Tuesday night of the following week. It was in direct competition with Lethal Weapon 2 in its second week, I think. Batman came out near the end of June. Star Trek V was already dead, done, and buried. Indy was pretty much done, having been playing in theater since Memorial Day weekend. LTK died because it wasn't a fun movie like the other big box office hits. Slog em all you want to, but look at what people are seeing these days in theaters. They want comedies, light stuff. LTK was too somber, too deadly serious, and they didn't warm to Timothy Dalton at all.
Now back to Roger...I heard in an interview when they asked him if he ever planned on doing 7 movies all along, and of course, he laughed, saying something to the effect of I didn't think I'd go beyond two. Was someone making noises about dropping Roger? Did someone-say Cubby, maybe?-stick up for him?

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Now back to Roger...I heard in an interview when they asked him if he ever planned on doing 7 movies all along, and of course, he laughed, saying something to the effect of I didn't think I'd go beyond two.  Was someone making noises about dropping Roger?  Did someone-say Cubby, maybe?-stick up for him?

I'm sure this was Roger joking around with the interviewer. The Bond producers have a habit of sticking with their Bond actors. The producers have always kept their actors in the lead role until the actor themself chose to hang up their Walther PPK.
It is well known that Cubby and Harry even wanted George Lazenby to return despite the poor performance of OHMSS at the box office. Lazenby of course took some bad advice from some friends of his (that said 007 was on his way out) and refused to return (Cubby, in the early 1980s was quoted as saying that he though George Lazenby could have been a great 007 if he had stuck with the role).
Then when it came to "Goldeneye" Timothy Dalton was to have returned to the role, but he decided against it reasoning that the 6 year break had been too long and he wanted to move onto something else. Micheal France said in an interview that he had written the script with Timothy Dalton on board as 007 (and hence some of the dark angst of the movie) and there was quite substantial rewriting done to fit Pierce Brosnan's style after Dalton bowed out.

[goldengun]

Dropping Moore after his performance in TMWTGG? Now what a shame that would have been.

I think one of Moore's finest performances are TMWTGG. He's rough, and suave and has a good time delivering some excellent one-liners.

Sometimes I wish Roger would stop joking about his days as Bond. I think that when he continues to joke about his Bond days, that pushes people to say - "Yeah you see - even Roger agrees with me!"

I remember when my wife first saw TMWTGG - she was in shock of some scenes in it - like when he slaps around Miss Anders. She said "it's a side of Moore I never saw@!" I think that the movie has a good feel - and I like the ending. And my wife mentioned yesterday, they should give Moore some plastic surgery and put him back in the Bond role. Enough already!

This movie had some more exciting locales to offer the audience then LALD did. And IMO - sets the pattern for the rest of the films to follw.

Dropping MOore after TMWGG - no I can't believe it - they needed a star to take the series over and give it a shot because of what was going on with Connery and Lazenby.

Seeing that Mooore was coming off of his Saint/Persuaders series and his phenomenal performance in "The Man Who Haunted Himself" - he was perfect for the Bond role.

I can't remember who it was here but someone provided an excellent write-up in another topic as to how hard it was for Moore to get the Bond role - Cubby didn't want him at first - but there was a real keener in MGM who was adamant that Moore was the actor for the role.

Al I can say is may Jehovah God bless the man who pushed for Moore to take the role in 1972.

They wanted the guy from TSWLM (the Russian). I don't like him.

[ChandlerBing]

The chap who was boinking Barbara Bach before Roger Moore in the movie? I remember him. He was a hairy guy. Was it Michael Billington?

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
I didn't mean Cubby dumping Roger.  I mean, would UA have dumped him?  With DAF onward, they had a lot of say about Bond.

United Artist was just the financial arm for Bond . Not until Saltzman sold his share of DANJAQ did UA have a larger voice with Bond . Who would have replaced Moore in 1975 ? Michael Billington came the closest !

[ChandlerBing]

Actually after the failure, if you want to call it that, of OHMSS, UA did have a larger role in what was going to be said about Bond. That source comes from the James Bond Legacy by John Cork and some other guy. You can't miss it, it's a huge coffee table book, and you could swing it and hurt someone.

[rogermoore007]

greatest coffee table book ever--also, as you say, a formidable weapon--i would know, i have the book and a brother

[Panavision]

I think Roger signed a 4 picture deal...? After Golden Gun, give Broccoli credit, he took Bond Beyond all other action pictures, and produced something quite unique at the time. Spy Who Loved Me really does stand out and cannot be mistaken for anything else. Bond had a revised identity from 77 onwards.

[Simon]

I thought it was a three picture deal from the get go - so taking him to Spy.

As for Gg tanking - it didn't. It still made its profits so I'd say there was no danger of anyone being dumped.

[ChandlerBing]

OHMSS made a profit, too, and look what happened there. Lazenby jumped, Peter Hunt was not asked back. For a movie that cost a little over 7 mil, to rake in over 80 mil worldwide, they call it failure...GG made a shade under a 100 worldwide, and was still considered a failure...who writes the history books?

[Simon]

But Lazenby and Hunt were not asked back for entirely different reasons. Financial profitability was not the issue there.

That film cannot really be allied to Gg's history in trying to fathom the historical movement towards Spy's evolution.

[Panavision]

If it wasn't for Lazenby's agent, we might never have seen Moore as Bond...

[goldengun]

I think that if it weren't for Lazenby's antic pre, during and post filming - we wouldn't have seen Moore.

Lazenby really distanced himslef from Bernard Lee, Desmond and Lois - who all gave a firm NO when asked if they were interested in working with Lazenby again after OHMSS.

[Dr Noah]

"United Artist was just the financial arm for Bond . Not until Saltzman sold his share of DANJAQ did UA have a larger voice with Bond ."

United Artists had the final say on cast, script and budget. Hence the return of Connery in DAF, which was imposed on Broculli and Saltzman.