Richard Maibaum was a key component to the series and was invaluable writing for EON for three decades, but I have to let him go and keep Sean Connery. The original 007 is considered the prototypical James Bond for a reason. He exuded machismo, charisma, and sex appeal in droves and was a more rugged and hardboiled Brit than usually appeared onscreen at the time, and was quickly approved of and enjoyed by American audiences, which helped skyrocket the series into the stratosphere. If another actor had been cast in the role, then EON likely wouldn’t have had as much success and the series would have died out after two or three films.
3 Likes
As a writer it pains me to say that - but knowing that Maibaum was rewritten again and again, like Adam he was an important element… but not as essential as the main actor who really started it all.
Without Connery we wouldn’t be talking about Bond films today anymore.
Connery was probably the most important ingredient in the first 10 years.
5 Likes
Richard Maibaum wrote great scripts that in my opinion, any Bond actor would fit.
Remember, Ian Fleming didn’t liked Connery at first and called him an “overgrown stuntman”, although later worked.
What if there’s Connery, but no Maibaum? What would happen to the quality of scripts? Sure, there’s the books to rely on, but the execution of it on screen? Would it work? Would Connery able to carry such scripts? One of the things why the earlier Bond films worked was because of the writing, so, I guess not, no don’t point me Tom Mankiewicz, he’d turned those Fleming books into a mess, Christopher Wood? His scripts are out of Fleming/Bond world, no signature Bond trademark, very interchangeable with the other films outside of Bond.
But if there’s Maibaum, but a different Bond actor? Would it work? Yes, the films would remain the same, actually hiring a Bond actor would take some shaping into the role, Connery was trained by Terrence Young in able to fit into the role like a glove, for sure, Terrence Young could’ve done that to any actor to be Bond.
Terrence Young was the key to Connery’s performance and to whatever his successes are.
Remember, a script could affect an actor (whether he’s good or not), I’m looking at you, Purvis and Wade.
But of course, Maibaum was still not safe from any criticisms, remember all of the drafts that he’d written before the actual results (like making Blofeld and Goldfinger twin brothers for example), but out of all that, was he’d wrote some quality scripts (especially those from 60’s Bond films).
Sure, Connery’s performance cannot still be topped, but in an alternate universe maybe another actor could’ve make it work, perhaps? But in an alternate universe where there’s a different writer? I’m not sure if the Franchise would’ve strived.
Both are critical to the success of the Franchise, but again, Connery didn’t last in the role for so long, he’d been replaced by five actors, meanwhile Maibaum, even after Connery left, he’d still remained.
Let’s imagine another actor in DR. NO.
George Lazenby?
Even Roger Moore?
Cary Grant, as it was at one time contemplated?
One or two films at best. No ongoing series.
It needed that one actor. The one miracle. Somebody who was not famous before. Somebody who the audience could believe as that new character. Somebody who captured audiences worldwide.
That’s not easy. It´s a needle in a haystack.
3 Likes
Connery stays
2 Likes
He created the template for every action hero today, Patrick McGoohan, even Cary Grant. Most could have followed Connery, but to start the series… it would have fizzled out after three pictures. We might be talking about a TV show based on the obscure 60s spy films
2 Likes
If they’re going to get trained by Terrence Young like what he did to Connery when he’s just new to Bond, possibly they could’ve worked.
The man behind Connery being the Bond we know was Terrence Young.
Young was very helpful in directing Connery - but Hunt was as helpful as possible in directing Lazenby, and…
Connery had “it”. You can’t teach that. Actors at the right moment in time in the right role - that’s like winning the lottery.
4 Likes
My gut reaction was to say SC, but ultimately film is a medium processed visually perhaps more so than aurally. If one has to go, then ultimately it’s Maibaum. As others have stated, SC possesses star power, that indefinable quality that defines cinema (so much more than television, which I’d argue is owned by the writer).
Let’s put it this way - conventional wisdom might say that TD is the best “actor” to have played the part. But unfortunately he didn’t possess star power in the way that Sir Rog and SC had before him.
It ain’t fair, but popularity never is…
3 Likes
I feel Connery’s presence was what “sold” Bond to the world at large. I’m just barely too young to have been around for it first hand, but my impression is that the movie “Englishman” stereotype pre-Bond was formed by Rex Harrison/Leslie Howard types: prim and proper, a bit on the stuffy side and not particularly “macho.” At best maybe you’d have an intellectual superman type like Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes, but even he was partnered with a blustering, tweedy, mustachioed Watson like Nigel Bruce, an Englishman apparently working from instructions to “be more English.”
Then along came Connery with swarthy, dark looks that made him seem indeterminately “ethnic” enough to have come from almost anywhere except the UK, with a build and walk as intimidating as any movie cowboy’s and with an attitude that brooked no insults. If another actor had worn those bespoke suits and uttered some of that snobby dialog he wouldn’t have moved the needle at all in convincing Americans (for one) that Bond wasn’t just another effete Englishman, but coming from this guy – a borderline hooligan hanging out with the jet set – it all took on an ironic tone. He could hobnob with millionaires in swanky casinos without making us hate him, and drive one of the world’s most expensive cars while still being “one of the guys.” If he talked like an Englishman, it was just because he was spoofing the English image.
I just see Connery as uniquely marketable to a worldwide audience thanks to his looks, mannerisms and sex appeal. I don’t know what brainstorm inspired the producers to fill the role of a gentlemans club-going, snobbish gourmand of a British hero with a Scottish footballer who favored bluejeans and beer, but they struck gold. Between them, Connery and The Beatles inspired new legions of Anglophiles and made British = cool and chic in ways I don’t think it ever was before. That would have been hard to imagine happening with anyone else in the tux, IMHO.
I’m not saying Maibaum didn’t make great contributions to the series, but I know he was also involved in the “Dr No is a monkey” debacle, tried to work another monkey into OHMSS as a Bond ally and wanted to feature Goldfinger’s twin brother in DAF, so he was capable of some serious missteps. Scriptwriting is more of a collaborative effort, often with key contributors going uncredited thanks to the vagaries of the business, whereas Connery’s contributions to the series are much easier to see. So it’s Sean who gets the nod.
But as before, taking out either one could only hurt the films, not help.
6 Likes
There is no James Bond without Sean Connery.
4 Likes
September 21
Binvolve! Binclude! Bincorporate! Binsert!
(Obvious one really) - Binput!
- Harry Saltzman
- Roger Moore
0 voters
Roger Moore
The start of Roger Moore was the point when the recasting of the Bond actors happened, the thing in Moore’s case was he’s a popular actor, people easily accepted him because he’s really famous (therefore, they’re familiar with him), he’d starred with famous actors/actresses, The Saint (which was a hit) and The Persuaders (which became more of a hit, globally).
And I could argue that you could put any popular and famous actors in his shoes and it would still be the same outcome, any popular actor would’ve been easily accepted by the people at the time as long as they’re popular and famous, that’s the thing with Moore, for example, you could put Michael Caine or any famous actor in the same situation and it would still be the same, Lazenby didn’t worked because he’s not popular, he’s completely unknown, hence why the people didn’t accepted him in the role after Connery, he’s not as important to the Franchise as Harry Saltzman was, or maybe even what Connery brought to the Franchise.
Harry Saltzman was the blood and life of the Franchise in its starting years, he helped Cubby developed the series into its popularity, so he had a lot more important and big contribution moreso than Moore.
I may understand the importance of Connery in the Franchise, he’s essential to the development of the film series, but not Moore, he’s not as essential as Connery, because by the time Moore took over, the Franchise was already developed.
And is it me or I prefer Harry Saltzman to Cubby Broccoli? I know both of them are important to the Franchise, but Harry is more likeable than Cubby, he’s more approachable and more kinder to the staffs, cast and crews than Cubby.
Also, I think since Cubby held the Franchise alone, it’s where the downfall in the quality of the Bond films started, I could also argue that Harry Saltzman had better quality of Bond films than Cubby alone.
That’s the thing, what Cubby did was to make Bond chase the trends and recycled the same thing again and again (it’s only when Cubby alone where the Bond films started to recycle plots from previous Bond films); more quantity over quality, with Saltzman, he liked Bond to have standards and better quality.
Harry Saltzman needs to be kept.
2 Likes
Roger Moore is my favorite James Bond. So, hasta la vista Harry Saltzman.
2 Likes
You chose Roger Moore because he’s your favorite? But not realizing that Saltzman was more important to the Franchise?
You liked Moore, but the Franchise wouldn’t have became as it is without Saltzman.
I suspect that is well realised but one has to bear in mind this is literally an impossible choice.
(Devised having watched Sophie’s Choice the other evening. Needed a good laugh after having had the dog put down).
4 Likes
Sir Roger is just as indispensable as Connery. Without Moore DAF would have been the last profitable Bond film.
But Cubby proved to be very capable on his own. So… easy choice.
5 Likes
Harry Saltzman was a showman and an ideas man. He had a million of them–most of them were not good, but quite a few were brilliant. And he and Cubby Broccoli made a great, if strained, partnership. However, if I have to jettison one, then Saltzman gets my vote. The series has moved along quite nicely without him, which, to be fair, you can say the same thing about Roger Moore.
However, the key thing with Moore is, that while he was not the original 007, he nevertheless proved that James Bond could go on with another actor in the role besides the iconic Sean Connery. Without Moore, we likely are not seeing any Bond films since the 1970s. Like Connery in the 1960s, Moore was the perfect 007 for his time. No one else at the time could have comfortably and satisfactorily stepped into Connery’s shoes and succeeded as 007 to the extent Moore did. Not only that, but he also proved you could play Bond a different way from Connery and it would still work. And here we are nearly 40 years(!!!) since he stepped away from the role and Bond is still going strong. So Moore gets to stay.
3 Likes
If Lazenby was as famous and popular as Moore, then the same situation could’ve happened to him, he could move the Franchise beyond Connery, as the aspect about him was (to argue), a lot better than what happened in the Moore Era: evolving Bond as a character by giving him depth (humanity and feelings), something that happened later in the Dalton Era, and became a big thing in the Craig Era.
Remember the Franchise nearly put into cease with The Man With The Golden Gun performed poorly in the box office, not even Live And Let Die was as big as the previous Connery Era Bond films, until The Spy Who Loved Me happened, so what if Moore never continued after TMWTGG?
(TMWTGG is the lowest grossing film of the Franchise, until LTK).
Harry Saltzman was a guy from the start, I get your argument, but Cubby couldn’t make James Bond as a franchise, alone, at that time (back in 1962).
Long before Moore, there’s Harry Saltzman.
Harry Saltzman, like Cubby, was a producer, he’s the life of the Franchise more than anyone.
He, along with Cubby, started the James Bond Franchise.
Moore was replaceable, you could replace him with any famous/popular actors at the time, and it would still have the same outcome as what happened when Moore took over the role, it’s in the films themselves (hence, again, The Man With The Golden Gun and its box office status).
Also, it’s in the period of The Man With The Golden Gun when Saltzman departed from the franchise that’s also one of the probable reason why it affected the film itself and didn’t performed well.
Had Saltzman continued to be with Cubby, I’d argue, the Bond Franchise would’ve been probably in a much better state (and TMWTGG wouldn’t suffer as it is).
With Connery, he had a harder task when it comes to selling the character to everyone (and he succeeded and his take became iconic), it’s the introduction of the Franchise, unlike Moore, whom when arrived, the Franchise was already developed as it is, and if Lazenby continued, Moore would’ve never been in the Franchise in the first place.
1 Like
Sir Rog showed that the lead could be “successfully” recast, but the lead had already been recast. While Laz may not have been a hit with critics and audience, OHMSS still did very well in comparison with other releases of that year. So while Sir Rog proved that the series’ longevity could be secure, Laz definitely didn’t kill the golden goose in his one go. Small sample size, I will admit.
Simplistic answer I know, but in these battles it’s the slimmest of arguments that make the difference. So I’m keeping Harry. The partnership was so important in establishing the series, and I would offer (without anything to back it up of course… 
) that Saltzman’s wandering eye creatively wasn’t the worse thing in those days, balancing well with Broccoli’s very singular focus on Bond.
2 Likes