Correct.
Roger Moore is the most important factor of the whole series because his portrayal of Bond not only allowed the films to go on without Connery, it also made it possible that it could go on without him.
Again, have Lazenby appear in DAF and maybe even one more film and I am sure the films would have stopped after disappointing grosses (maybe to be resurrected 20 years later by another production company, with doubtful results).
As a major Roger Moore fan, this premise has obvious appeal to me, but I’m not sure the “3 times” part applies.
LALD is the easy one; having failed to launch Lazenby as “the next big thing” and gone running back to Connery for DAF, UA and Eon left the impression the Bond series could never succeed without the participation of Big Tam. In addition, with the arrival of the 1970s and a very different style of moviemaking, some could be forgiven for thinking 007 belonged back in the 60s. In hindsight it’s easy to mock Lazenby for thinking Bond was a fading fad, but he didn’t make that decision in a vacuum and he was not alone in his assessment. The success of LALD proved that Bond could indeed succeed without Connery and, as secretagentfan says, ultimately that it could succeed without Moore. It would be exaggerating to say it made the world forget Connery but it did offer Exhibit A in the argument that James Bond was a phenomenon bigger than any one performer, something Cubby was intent on proving again and again in the latter half of his career. Success by success, and over time, he would do it.
It gets slightly less clear-cut with TSWLM. The lackluster performance of TMWTGG may have created the impression that LALD was a one-off, an anomaly. The fact that Harry was gone may have created some doubt whether Cubby could go it alone. The decision to double down on “Spy” was one of the boldest in series history; after three consecutive films that showed obvious signs of cost-cutting, it was a bold move to gamble on a larger budget and the construction of the world’s largest sound stage. Behind the scenes troubles in court and a mile-high stack of rejected scripts hinted at potential disaster. But the result was spectacular success and what I consider the second wave of true “Bondmania” (I may be prejudiced as I lived through it).
OP is “iffy” in my book. Yes, there was concern about a rival production, but despite McClory’s wild claims, I don’t think there was ever a way he could have spun an entire, ongoing series out of the only Bond story he owned rights to. Just owning the “SPECTRE” concept didn’t mean he owned “James Bond.” Also, even if FYEO didn’t make as much money as MR (few films did in those days!) that didn’t mean the Eon series was “on the ropes.” If NSNA had out-performed OP, it almost certainly would have led to Moore getting sacked, but I seriously doubt it would’ve ended the series, entirely.
With all that said, and taking out words like “saved,” I’m more comfortable saying something like, “Roger Moore proved Bond could thrive in a new decade and without Connery, returned the series (at least briefly) to its lofty position in popular culture and equalled or bested Sean himself to face down the threat of a rival series.”
But that’s too wordy to have any sex appeal.
Absolutely.
Agreed. Very little sex appeal there. But completely on the money, especially, with LALD.
As for OP, while I might be splitting hairs here, but I think Sir Rog saved EON, rather than the series. In alternate universe, where NSNA blows OP out of the box office water, then we may well have seen yet another legal back-and-forth, with everyone claiming what they can and cannot do and who had ownership over what. That OP did so well allowed EON and Bond to continue to be “one and the same.” If a film with the original chap in it, couldn’t beat the incumbent, what chance did any rival have?
It’s just hard for me to imagine NSNA launching a series. It didn’t “prove” anything to have a Bond movie starring Sean Connery make money: that was pretty much a given. But there was next to no chance he’d have signed on to multiple films, so they’d have had to find a new star to take over, which was a whole other proposition entirely.
I kind of view NSNA as Connery throwing a brick through Cubby’s window. He can’t have really thought it would shut Eon down, but it sure made a statement.
Moore was essential for the success of OP. If he had gambled on a too high fee or even stepped down at that time it would have been a huge problem for EON.
Since he and Connery were friendly I guess they both saw the big potential to profit from the situation of the dueling Bonds - and so did Broccoli.
But if NSNA had outgrossed OP by a wide margin it would have been embarrassing for Moore and EON. Having won that round and continuing for the next one was a sign of confidence for them. Even if that confidence only held up for one more.
April 21 - One could argue that Craig saved the series after the trainwreck of Die Another Day. This despite the fact, that MGM have done everything they can to kill the series over the last 30-ish years. Moore definitely proved there was life beyond Connery (though really OHMSS was fine and Lazenby was a phenomenon in 1969 until he stepped down from the role). The Bond series needed saving in 1995 as mismanagement by MGM nearly proved the death nell for the series (I still want to get Dalton’s 3rd film in some form, whether it be a comic book, novel, game etc.). In hindsight, EON didn’t need to compete with NSNA. Kevin McClory screwed that film on his own by being so blatantly cynical in what he was doing (throwing a middle finger to EON productions and Ian Fleming). Bringing back Connery was a shameless attempt to mask his own failings.
But Die Another Day wasn’t received like that. It got the reviews that Bond at that time always got (“meh”) and financially did much better than “franchise saving” films and competition of the time. I know revisionist history wants to say it was a bomb in every sense of the word but it wasn’t. Not even close.
April 20-
As a huge fan of Craig’s portrayal of Bond , I would have liked 1 more between QOS/ SF/ SP.
In terms of character growth I would say if one film is superfluous it’s Skyfall, the greatest hits package could be taken out and Casino Royale to No Time To Die runs quite nicely. Though see above, I wanted one more in the middle.
This is actually a fascinating topic for me. It’s easy to look at the box office returns from OP and NSNA and declare a “winner,” and Lord knows I think OP works much better on most every level, but as we see every day, the quality of a film often has little to do with its box office success. Just as often, it’s down to marketing, timing and “buzz.” In 1983 it was an enormous event to have Connery back as Bond, and to some extent Warners coasted on that “free” publicity whereas United Artists had to push OP like it would any entry, and maybe a little harder. It’s interesting to me that in the end OP did better business and I wonder how much of it had to do with the content of the film, or any affection for Roger, and how much was down to superior marketing and, perhaps crucially, the delays that kept the two films from going head-to-head in the Summer as originally planned, and ended up pushing NSNA back to the Fall.
Even with all that, Connery’s mere presence was intoxicating enough to convince many that NSNA was the greatest thing since the Golden Age of Hollywood, and I remember for instance 007 Magazine fawning all over it, only to take – in more recent years – a much harsher view of the film in hindsight.
I get the distinct impression Roger was signed on for OP because he was the only lead with any chance at all of beating Connery, and that when he did in fact come out on top, he was given AVTAK as a sort of “victory lap,” whereas in any other reality Cubby would’ve moved onto a new face for sure.
Indeed. I was deeply discouraged by DAD, as I had been by the whole Brosnan run, but when I emerged from the theater vowing I was done with the series, it wasn’t because it was a bad movie – we’d gotten a good share of those before – but because I knew it was going over in a big way, and there was no reason to believe Eon would change direction when the cash was pouring in at such volume. There seemed no reason for me to stay on board if this was direction things were going.
I was as shocked as anyone – probably more so – when they did a hard reboot.
April 21 -
Moore was the greatest ambassador for 007 - charming, witty, affable, not sure he saved the series though, LALD followed one of the best reviewed ( at the time ) films of the series and was panned, did huge box office because, it could be argued, DAF had proven that there was a way to go, TMWTGG was more of the same but not as good and people stayed away, Moore had not found his feet.
77’ gave them time to think to raise capital and fortuitously, coincide with the Queen’s jubilee celebrations. A perfect storm. So the Queen saved the franchise really…
83’ without Moore and bedding a new Bond perhaps would have destroyed EON so it could be argued he saved the series then, however, if NSNA had been a bolder film, a better film then Octopussy would not have been able to stand up to it.
This OP discussion is great - as a teenage fan, 2 Bonds was the greatest thing in the world. But sitting here now on the forum, it’s fascinating to play “what if” with what could have been a pivotal moment in the history of celluloid Bond.
Let’s just say, Sir Rog had not returned and the James Brolin screen tests had become the actual OP, how would the returns have changed? It had been a decade since LALD, and so the “box office” bounce that I think is more a reality when franchises reboot now, might not have been a thing. If NSNA handily defeats a new Bond at the box office, what might have happened? As StB says, would EON have gone down. Or would Cubby have found a way to move forward?
On the other hand, if Brolin is a box office smash, in what fashion does the franchise re-model as it always does to fit its lead. Does it open the door for a new direction in re-casting the lead after Brolin departs? Instead of Dalton-Broz do we end up with Gibson, or Cruise or whoever?
April is a fascinating month!
Exactly. Financially the most successful Brosnan film. MGM would have been ecstatic to get a fifth one like it.
And, yeah, audiences I saw it with loved it. So did I.
As for NSNA - I loved it, too, although already back then I found the finale lacking. But Connery was funny and Brandauer was great. The sunny feel of the whole thing and a very sexy Barbara Carrera still raise the entertainment factor.
I also loved OP, so - win-win.
This discussion raises interesting questions about what’s behind some of the bigger “successes” of the series, though.
TB brought in more money than GF, but was it really a better film, or did it just ride the crest of the Bondmania tidal wave the former film had initiated? MR was the biggest moneymaker in the series until GE, but is that due its merits or to following in the wake of TSWLM and arriving at the height of space move mania? Did OP beat NSNA because it was better or because it beat it to theaters by months and thus got the most value out of all the “Battle of the Bonds” publicity? DAD did giant business, but how much of that might have been influenced by 40th-anniversary excitement?
The point being, I guess, that in a business where box office receipts are the yardstick for “success,” the most amazing thing about the Bond series may be how often it’s been willing to change direction when staying the course seemed an easier way to keep the cash rolling in. OHMSS followed YOLT, FYEO followed MR, CR followed DAD. And when so much of a film’s success comes down to matters of timing or other factors beyond the filmmakers’ control, how does anyone in charge really know why one does better than another, and which way to go next? We’re lucky the Eon crew have had as clear a grasp as they have.
Excellent analysis…
April 22-
Absolutely no question about it. They are all better at their jobs for sure, this Blofeld doesn’t have quite the same fascination with expensively tailored uniforms for henchmen, seems to want actual criminals, the scheme only fails because Largo is, let’s face it Bat shit crazy, as is Ms. Blush. In calmer hands they would have achieved their aim with or without ConneryBond’s interference.
That indeed proves EON is more intelligent than others: get out when the success is the highest - only to build up again in order to keep on reaching those highs.
Slightly. But Fatima and Largo have the same weakness: narcissism.
Oh, those golden times when that problem brought the bad guys down so quickly.
Roger Moore is the man who truly made James Bond an ongoing cinematic franchise, and without him the shadow of Connery would be even greater than it already is. I imagine the perception of the brand would be very different if we had several more Bond actors throughout the 70s/80s rather than just Roger. After the 1969-1971 era of musical chairs, Roger’s presence made the role more exclusive and stable. Connery’s initial run of successive appearances wasn’t a fluke - it was exceeded and throughout that time there was still an audience. Roger provided a counterpoint and became a titan in his own right.
Casino Royale, Skyfall and No Time To Die deliver what I was wanting from Daniel Craig. An emphasis on character, emotion and subverting the traditional while still providing elements of that experience. I didn’t hate the movie, but I now view SPECTRE in a more favourable light than previously given the presence of Madeleine. I believe the last two Craig films work better as companion pieces in comparison to Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. To me, the continuity feels more organic and consistent.
Spectre? Not so sure on this. I thought they were just as effective in TB. Ta dum!
I’d have to say, I thought they were very competent in FRWL, and in a much more complex plan that relied on other parties acting as they had predicted. You could view that as a weakness at worst, a bit of a punt at best, but they manipulate and move the pieces quite effectively, killing off Bey, completely fooling the girl, and frankly Bond doesn’t have a clue what’s going on until Grant orders the wrong wine.
As for the actual film bearing their name. Not quite sure what they were up to there. Frankly they were about as threatening as your local model railway club. And less interesting, to boot.