Do you think Roger Moore was good bond, or a bad one?, Good, Or Bad Options

[BryanHerbert]

Do you think Roger Moore was honestly a good bond, or a bad one with terrible puns.

[The Shark]

A good Bond, a very good Bond. Without him, I doubt Bond would have survived throughout the 70s and early 80s.

It's a shame his smug male model imitator (Brosnan) gets more credit for recycling what Sir Rog had already perfected.

[BryanHerbert]

I actually didn't think about it like that before, and it makes total sense. Your right it probably wouldn't of survived without Roger Moore.

[David_M]

It all depends on what you want from a Bond. For me, it's sophistication, charm, wit and class, and by those criteria he's not only good, but the best.

However, if what you want is a devotedly faithful adaptation of Fleming's Bond, a macho action star or a sizzling hot sex symbol, you'll probably want to move on to the other fellas.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Definitely good. Moore is a close second only to Connery in my book. His only weakness was a lack of physicality - he was less than convincing as a tough guy. But he had the good sense to move away from that kind of interpretation after the first couple of films.

There may have been some bad puns, but he delivered them all like a pro, and he had some genuinely witty dialogue to work with. If you want bad puns, look to the Brosnan movies (an edifice complex?)

I'm not concerned with how faithful his take on Bond was to Fleming - if I want Fleming's Bond, I'll read one of the books.

This post has been edited by Rufus Ffolkes: 14 December 2009 - 19:08

[mccartney007]

He wasn't good. He was great.

[BryanHerbert]

Agreed strongly, i thought roger moore's take on bond was ok, but what made laugh was how when he was about to punch someone, he'd put one hand under their chin, wait five seconds then punch. lol I thought the puns were overrated because he used them to much, and sounded kind of sily, too me anyway.

[jaguar007]

I will answer your question two fold.

Roger's portrayal of Bond is far from my favorite. I tend to prefer my Bond a little tougher and Flemingesque. Connery, Craig, Dalton style.

That said, I love Roger Moore. He is one of those actors who I can watch in anything. He managed to pull off the worst puns (something Brosnan could never do) and make outlandish Bond movies highly entertaining. I will take most Moore movies over most Brosnan movies any day.

[BryanHerbert]

I personally think Brosnan was better than Moore, Moore had to much of a sissy take on bond, if someone was going to protect the world and all that nonsense, i would want bond or something tough that could handle themselves, which Moore in no way showed, he was not intimidating what so ever, if i ever saw him in real life, i would laugh, HARD!!! Roger Moore's puns were not played out well at all, every time i heard him say a irrelevant pun, i would turn the channel, the reason i say channel is because i would never intently put a roger moore movie in my dvd player. I will always think that brosnan is way better than Moore.

[elizabeth]

moore was a GREAT bond. my favorite, in fact. i know there were doubts at the time as to whether he could play the role well, but he pulled it off with finesse. he really showed them.

[The Shark]

I personally think Brosnan was better than Moore, Moore had to much of a sissy take on bond, if someone was going to protect the world and all that nonsense, i would want bond or something tough that could handle themselves, which Moore in no way showed, he was not intimidating what so ever, if i ever saw him in real life, i would laugh, HARD!!!

Brosnan tougher than Moore?

I never found Brosnan remotely intimidating, even when he tried to act (i.e. TWINE) it looked even worse. He looked more like a fey, Irish-American, pretty male model, than a gentleman killer. His infamous painface was even more laughable.

Moore in TMWTGG, with scenes like Lazar and Andrea's interrogation, prove that Moore could be very cold, tough, sly and almost psychopathic, in many ways in line with Fleming's Bond. Brosnan never got close.

[BryanHerbert]

If Pierce Brosnan fought Roger Moore, Brosnan would beat moore's like it was a drum. Roger moore's intimidation was laughable, Moore was 55 in his first movie, lol not really though.

[The Shark]

Or



?

This post has been edited by The Shark: 14 December 2009 - 21:35

[David_M]

if someone was going to protect the world and all that nonsense,

Here you've put your finger on the key to the whole thing. Roger knew it was "nonsense" and played it up to milk every bit of fun out of it. Brosnan pretended the nonsense was serious and important, and thus made it twice as nonsensical and considerably less fun.

No, Roger wasn't physically intimidating, but he knew it and worked around it. Brosnan wasn't either, but he pretended he was and convinced no one, probably not even himself.

The puns were often bad for both actors, but Roger delivered them like he thought they were funny, so sometimes they were. Brosnan seemed as embarrassed to say them as we were to hear them, so they never worked.

What can I say, though? You either like Roger or you don't, and it was ever thus. Moore is Moore.

Brosnan, however, is less.

[David_M]

if someone was going to protect the world and all that nonsense,

Here you've put your finger on the key to the whole thing. Roger knew it was "nonsense" and played it up to milk every bit of fun out of it. Brosnan pretended the nonsense was serious and important, and thus made it twice as nonsensical and considerably less fun.

No, Roger wasn't physically intimidating, but he knew it and worked around it. Brosnan wasn't either, but he pretended he was and convinced no one, probably not even himself.

The puns were often bad for both actors, but Roger delivered them like he thought they were funny, so sometimes they were. Brosnan seemed as embarrassed to say them as we were to hear them, so they never worked.

What can I say, though? You either like Roger or you don't, and it was ever thus. Moore is Moore.

Brosnan, however, is less.

[David_M]

if someone was going to protect the world and all that nonsense,

Here you've put your finger on the key to the whole thing. Roger knew it was "nonsense" and played it up to milk every bit of fun out of it. Brosnan pretended the nonsense was serious and important, and thus made it twice as nonsensical and considerably less fun.

No, Roger wasn't physically intimidating, but he knew it and worked around it. Brosnan wasn't either, but he pretended he was and convinced no one, probably not even himself.

The puns were often bad for both actors, but Roger delivered them like he thought they were funny, so sometimes they were. Brosnan seemed as embarrassed to say them as we were to hear them, so they never worked.

What can I say, though? You either like Roger or you don't, and it was ever thus. Moore is Moore.

Brosnan, however, is less.

[jaguar007]

I have to agree with Shark. Brosnan "played" Bond tougher than Moore did, but to me it looked so unnatural acting. Part of it may be size, Brosnan was so slight that I never felt he was at all intimidating. Moore rarely "acted" tough, but his confidence shone much more than Brosnan, and that made him. imo, a bit more intimidating.

The Lazar scene is a good example but check out some of Moore's other works, like The Wild Geese pictured above or The Saint. Moore was much tougher as The Saint than he was as Bond.

At least Moore never yelped like a little girl when putting his hand on a Chinese statue that spit fire

[jaguar007]

oops, double post

[BryanHerbert]

The Chinese statue scene your referring too was supposed to be funny, you remember when sean connery was getting abused by Bambi and Thumper,yeah and sean connery is the best. Roger Moore is and always will be a clown, too me.

[BoogieBond]

Roger Moore is and always will be a clown, too me.

So this is a loaded question

Answer : Good Bond, he had time to set the role and had qualities that complimented the movies, a light touch, comedy and charisma as well as a bit of sophistication and class. At times he portayed it a bit more seriously and that worked fine. Agreed with above, he wasn't an alpha male like Connery or Craig, and he didn't try playing Bond like in the books, so he loses marks with some people for that.

[Conlazmoodalbroc...]

Good - OK, I consider him the worst of the Bonds, but he did his job. His movies are entertaining, humorous and exciting. I think, as anti-Fleming as his Bond movies are, he is still probably the universal Bond, one who every audience can enjoy (maybe Craig can be considered a universal Bond as well).

[St. John Smythe]

Dude, Roger Moore rocks. He's probably my second favorite after Dalton. Moore gets a bad rap, in my opinion, because he was Bond in the 70s and 80s - two decades that have not held up well to today's standards. I think the Connery Bond films are easier to accept because, at the time, there were no computers for film special effects, and therefore they feel more gritty and honest, less hokey and dated. As Moore's time as Bond progressed, so did computerized/digital special effects, as well as computers, technology, electronics, etc. And since technology and effects have rapidly progressed in the last 35 years, seeing old-school Commodore 64-ish special effects and equipment can be laughable. If Moore had been the very first Bond, perhaps things could have been different.

I think Moore is an excellent Bond. He oozed sex, and he was smooth, suave, sophisticated, intelligent - when he spouts information about, say, an orchid, I feel as if he truly knows what he's talking about, and I believe it. His puns were eyeroll-worthy, but they were always said with good-natured irony and a wink to the audience. His dialogue and reactions seem natural, never forced, which, as others have already rightfully suggested, is the opposite of how Brosnan can be. To me, at least. I also like Moore because he's not afraid to speak his mind -- recalling how he was appalled that Tanya Roberts' own mother was younger than himself, and how he just felt too old for AVTAK (although, I'm a fan of that film myself), and calling out DAD's crap. And, he was awesome on his little stint during the first season of Alias (which is the best spy show ever, people).

And as much as I love OHMSS (and I love it a lot), I've always thought that Roger Moore could have totally owned that film, especially the heavy emotional ending.

I don't blame Moore for the perceived campiness and cheesiness of his films -- the films are just products of their unfortunately very dated times, and Moore is awesome for rolling with every punch and pigeon-double-take. Because I grew up on the Moore era films (albeit on televised TBS Bond marathons), perhaps it's easier for me to defend him and his Bond movies. But yeah, the dude rocks as Bond.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great. Not as awesome as '62-'67 Connery or as made to order Fleming-esque as Dalton and Craig but still great. He just got too old after FYEO.

[sharpshooter]

Great. Not as awesome as '62-'67 Connery or as made to order Fleming-esque as Dalton and Craig but still great. He just got too old after FYEO.

This.

[Byron]

If he had played Bond more like The Saint, he would have ranked higher on my list. I like his portrayal of the Saint cause he had the charm, wit but he could also get rough and ready when called for.

[00Twelve]

Good. Quite so.

Because he was having an absolute blast and it shows.

[David_M]

oops, double post

How do you think I feel, I did a triple! And what's more I don't know how to fix it. Old people and technology don't mix.

And as much as I love OHMSS (and I love it a lot), I've always thought that Roger Moore could have totally owned that film, especially the heavy emotional ending.

You know I think that's the first time I've ever seen a vote for Roger in OHMSS. It certainly would have stretched him, wouldn't it? And if it had come off, it might've given us a very different type of Moore era than the one we got. Better or worse, we'll never know, but different for sure.

Just for marrying off Simon Templar to Emma Peel alone, it would've been worth it.

[Genuine Felix Le...]

I find it very hard to hate Sir Roger Moore. I mean, you try to, the thought of watching some of his Bond movies is a hard thing to grasp, yet, it's hard to deny that the films themselves are a hell of a lot of fun and once you start to watch them you go along with them and end up having a whale of a time. Yes, some are better than others, I mean Live and Let Die is a fantastic film (guess where I got my username from?), as is The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, his light hearted nature suited the films very well and he was defintely dapper. I think he was at his best in FYEO, I mean, he carries that film in a way that is tremendous, there is a quality to him in that movie that carries more than just the puns and frivolity that he had in his others, a sense of a man haunted, who lives the way he does because hell, it could be all over tomorrow. It might actually give us a sense of why Moore's Bond is the way he is, there is a time for seriousness, you must dig two graves if you embark on revenge, but maybe one should enjoy it while it lasts, especially in the spy game. The pained look on his face in the pre-title sequence says more than pun ever could. I think he outstayed his welcome a bit, I feel a little queasy watching him make out with Tanya Roberts in A View to a Kill, and watching him try and take on the young dynamic of Christopher Walken and Grace Jones is like watching an old age bouncer eject two young ones from a night club, but when it comes to Sir Roger I think the good far outweighs the bad.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

He is not my absolute favourite, but I consider him too be an excellent Bond and somewhat underrated by many critics. I am a Bond fan and I'm happy to have him in the series. I don't get all the criticism, yes he is tongue in cheeck, but he does have his Flemingesque moments.

[Santa]

Dude, Roger Moore rocks. He's probably my second favorite after Dalton. Moore gets a bad rap, in my opinion, because he was Bond in the 70s and 80s - two decades that have not held up well to today's standards. I think the Connery Bond films are easier to accept because, at the time, there were no computers for film special effects, and therefore they feel more gritty and honest, less hokey and dated. As Moore's time as Bond progressed, so did computerized/digital special effects, as well as computers, technology, electronics, etc. And since technology and effects have rapidly progressed in the last 35 years, seeing old-school Commodore 64-ish special effects and equipment can be laughable. If Moore had been the very first Bond, perhaps things could have been different.

I think Moore is an excellent Bond. He oozed sex, and he was smooth, suave, sophisticated, intelligent - when he spouts information about, say, an orchid, I feel as if he truly knows what he's talking about, and I believe it. His puns were eyeroll-worthy, but they were always said with good-natured irony and a wink to the audience. His dialogue and reactions seem natural, never forced, which, as others have already rightfully suggested, is the opposite of how Brosnan can be. To me, at least. I also like Moore because he's not afraid to speak his mind -- recalling how he was appalled that Tanya Roberts' own mother was younger than himself, and how he just felt too old for AVTAK (although, I'm a fan of that film myself), and calling out DAD's crap. And, he was awesome on his little stint during the first season of Alias (which is the best spy show ever, people).

And as much as I love OHMSS (and I love it a lot), I've always thought that Roger Moore could have totally owned that film, especially the heavy emotional ending.

I don't blame Moore for the perceived campiness and cheesiness of his films -- the films are just products of their unfortunately very dated times, and Moore is awesome for rolling with every punch and pigeon-double-take. Because I grew up on the Moore era films (albeit on televised TBS Bond marathons), perhaps it's easier for me to defend him and his Bond movies. But yeah, the dude rocks as Bond.