Totally disagree. Moore brought a special side of Bond which again was casting gold. No other actor at the time could have taken over and been so brilliant in it.
TMWTGG flopped because there was a certain Bond fatigue at the time and the film itself did not deliver what audiences wanted. When that was rectified with the next film, Moore was the king of that Bond generation.
Moore kept the franchise alive. For many people in the sixties there was only one Bond: Sean Connery! Lazenby wasn’t realy excepted and most other actors would not have had the same succes as Moore did. Also he didn’t copy Connery. He made the part completely his own.
Somehow he was perfect for a whole new generation. Why Lazenby and Dalton were not? They miss some thing, call it starpower, or the X-factor.
Saying that any other famous actor would have succeed… I doubt it.
Yes, Moore was already famous, but only from television, that’s not the same thing as moviestar fame.
At the time movies and television were two different, seperate things and not many famous televisionstars would have been succesfull in the movies, let alone as James Bond.
But Moore did it and not only that: he showed that there was life in the franchise without Connery.
Saltzman was also imported, ofcourse he was, but after a while he increasingly lost interest and he started to pay more and more attention to other things (with ultimately not very good consequences for himself). If Saltzman wouldn’t have excist, Broccoli would have made the Bondmovies anyway, but only because Saltzman already had the rights of the novels they made a deal for a partnership.
Sure, that’s how we see it today, but back then, people easily accepted Moore because he’s popular, he’s famous, unlike Lazenby who was a complete unknown and not familiar with people.
But if a different actor (popular and famous) was hired back then, and the films remained the same (which possibly is), then it would’ve still worked, as how it worked with Moore.
That’s what I’m saying above.
Try putting any actor in Moore’s place, like again, Michael Caine, or any famous television star, it would’ve been still successful, because they’re still familiar with the people.
That’s it, the people know them.
I’m not talking using my perspective in this present time, I’m looking at a situation back then, so if I place myself back in 1973, I could see that situation being possible.
But since, it’s made and done, that’s how we view things now.
Why Dalton didn’t worked because Moore stayed in the role for so long that the people in that generation already grew up with him as Bond, but had Dalton took the role earlier, he would’ve been as successful as Moore, the same for Lazenby had he continued in the role.
It’s not about the X factor, or starpower, it’s about the familiarity with the audience, did the audience knew them at the time? Not.
Dalton was in Shakespeare plays, and the less said for Lazenby.
Imagine had Brosnan took over in 1987 instead of Dalton, it would’ve been more successful and the people would’ve accept him more, because he’s already famous at the time (not just as Remington Steele, but in other movies too before that).
Dalton was succesfull in Daylights, also because people were curious, but most people I knew at the time thought he was a bit boring and stiff and they even found the next film completely boring and Dalton not Bond-like. So I had to constantly defend him, even though I actually didn’t really like him either.
Lazenby just wasn’t world’s greatest actor and his biggest fault: he wasn’t Sean Connery. It hadn’t much to do if he was famous at the time, or not.
And ofcourse it has everything to do if they had starpower, or not. Some people have it, most not. Dalton certainly doesn’t.
I agree to the extent that we can only judge the importance of Moore in hindsight.
And it certainly helped that he already was known and popular - like Brosnan later on.
But popularity in tv roles does not guarantee success as a Bond actor. If it was so easy, the casting of a Bond actor would be a piece of cake. EON would just rely on the Bond formula and put someone front and center who was popular before.
Look at any successful film. And look at any flop. The right actor in the right role matters. And some just have the necessary quality, others don’t.
I love Michael Caine. But he would not have worked as Bond. Moore did.
Yes? Isn’t that how this works? Roger Moore is so integral to the franchise that he proved the series could go on without Sean Connery (even beating him head to head at the box office) and Harry Saltzman. So yes, Roger Moore is my favorite and vitally important to the survival of the Bond franchise. He stays.
Sir Roger replaced an icon, and became one in the process.
Bye, bye Harry.
Such an important point. Without Moore, a couple of failed films led by Conney tribute acts would have seen cinema Bond end by the mid 70s. That he can be reinvented is what gives the franchise legs that are 60 years old!
This is too cruel even for you, Jim. Why don’t you just get the carpet beater out and be done with it?
So, look, Roger is my favorite Bond. Obviously he’s not “irreplaceable” since he was in fact replaced and the series lives on. By that definition, Connery was replaceable, too. But neither could have been substituted as THE perfect guy for their respective eras. And more importantly for me personally, without Roger I might never have been a fan.
Having said all that, you can’t jettison Harry from Bond movie history and still HAVE Bond movie history. Cubby wanted to do Bond but couldn’t get the rights. Harry had them, and thus the partnership. So without Harry, there’s no Eon and without Eon there’s no Bond franchise, at least as we know it. Plus depending on who’s telling the story, it was Harry who pushed for Roger while Cubby had reservations, so if I cut Harry I may also be cutting Roger in the bargain.
If the question is which one could I personally do without, then the answer is Harry. If the answer is which one could be cut without posing an existential threat to the entire series, the answer is (alas) Roger.
But I refuse to make the choice, this time. And I’m beginning to suspect that behind that cuddly leonine avatar beats not only the heart not of a jungle cat, but the sick mind of the Jigsaw Killer from “Saw.”
@Jim can I intrude for a moment and include another binmoment poll?
I don’t know if you have this same thought as me, but I found this interesting to see.
This is just one, promise, it’s only one.
Just have a thought of this:
0 voters
Well that saves me a day, although it’s not remotely close nor debatable in my non-humble view - Campbell is bincluded, was for hire. Broccoli is beyond measure, or at least this measure. Binvolving Broccoli is a brave move, bravery being the compliment paid to failure.
I have a particular one for tomorrow, so be patient, but let’s play this current suggestion through.
Yes, I know both are important to the Franchise.
Cubby Broccoli is the producer, although the rights of the Fleming books was on Harry Saltzman (which he worked with), and they both succeed.
Campbell made Bond continue into the modern day, I doubt the Franchise would be able to continue without Campbell, that’s why I also regard him as another important aspect in the Franchise, he literally saved the Franchise after its hiatus along with the legal battles and the box office failure of LTK, then he made Bond survived the modern era again with CR, he introduced Bond to the modern generation, that not even Jeffrey Deaver could’ve done.
Campbell is highly overrated but extremely lucky in getting two Bond films which were conceived and expected as crowdpleasers.
Any good director could have made these as well.
But Cubby is the most important factor in bringing Bond to the screen and keeping it in the minds of audiences for decades.
I don’t think any directors could’ve been able to pull off what Campbell did, I mean think of a different director who could make Goldeneye and Casino Royale the same as how Campbell directed them.
You might discount Casino Royale since it’s came from a Fleming novel, but I’m still having a hard time who could’ve executed it the same as Campbell’s, Tarantino wanted to direct it at the time, but do you think the film would’ve been successful as it was with Tarantino in the directing chair? I doubt it, it wouldn’t attract audiences as it was with Campbell, and the Franchise would’ve probably stopped at that (sure, Tarantino is a famous director, but I doubt his execution, and the people would’ve likely to watch the film because of his name attached to it).
It’s Campbell’s directing style which became the major assets of these films (acting for second), do you think Goldeneye would’ve been in the same success with another director?
I actually couldn’t think of a different director who could’ve directed those films and making it successful other than Campbell.
Campbell’s style worked, that’s why there are people who wants him back to direct another Bond film again.
Campbell reinvented Bond into the new era, I doubt any directors could’ve done that, especially the balance which Campbell got right in both of his films.
Goldeneye and Casino Royale became an important entries in the Franchise for saving the Franchise into the modern world, making Bond successful, he made Bond relevant into the modern and contemporary world.
Other directors failed at directing Bond films and make it successful (with probably the exception of Terrence Young, and Lewis Gilbert), the rest just passed and go and never left a mark until Campbell arrived.
(Guy Hamilton succeeded with Goldfinger, but the rest of his films failed to hit the same status of GF).
And as much as I loved OHMSS (Peter Hunt), but back then, it didn’t became monumental as the other Bond films made by those directors, and it’s only getting its due now.
Also, it’s a hard task to introduce new Bond actors in modern times (but Campbell succeed in introducing both Brosnan and Craig).
What´s Campbell´s directing style?
I don´t think he has a particular one. He can do action, he is unfussy, and with his editor he manages to keep things moving at a good pace.
Any good director can do that, too.
And Campbell did not reinvent anything. EON did.
I think he can manage a right balance of tones, not all directors succeeded in balancing tones (maybe Peter Hunt).
He get the character of Bond right and blended him successfully into the modern world.
Whereas other (modern) directors failed at that (Sam Mendes had his flaws).
Mendes is a million miles ahead as a director.
But many people are telling (me included) that he’d failed in SPECTRE.
“Many people are saying…” - what are we, 45?