30 replies to this topic

[Felix's lighter]

I find, in this forum, that people are willing to concede that Roger Moore is the "funny Bond" or the Bond who "kept the series alive in the '70s." In all honesty, I find this a little condescending.

Here are my arguments as to why Roger Moore really IS Ian Fleming's James Bond:

-For Your Eyes Only. If it were only for this performance, this movie proved my argument. His performance is controlled and intense. He plays Bond tough, but not as the brute Connery portrayed. And why not? Ian Fleming's Bond was a killer, but it would be a stretch to say that he was as violent as Connery often portrayed him.

Incidentally, for those people who condemn Moore's supposed lack of stuntwork, are you aware that he scaled that cliff face by himself? There was a stunt double for the fall, but honestly, Connery's Bond never had to face this kind of physical challenge.

-He actually was a choice of Fleming's to play James Bond. Who better to judge who is the real James Bond than by the opinion of the character's creator?

-He manages to achieve Connery's same balance of comic timing and seriousness in The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy. If Connery is considered Fleming's Bond for virtually the same kind of performance, why would Moore not be?

-He was overall more consistent over a longer period of time than Connery. Connery was very good in his first two movies, but he starts showing boredom with the character as early as Goldfinger. Meanwhile, Moore was only just hitting his stride with his third movie, consistently getting better even as Connery got consistently worse.

There were a lot of challenges facing Moore's portrayal of 007. First of all, Live and Let Die was the first movie to take James Bond out of his element. Moore's own machismo has been questioned simply because this was the first movie to actually poke fun at the 007 character.

And yes, Moore's performance in Moonraker was pretty lightweight. My theory, however, is that EON was pretty confident MR would be Moore's last Bond performance. Therefore, they figured they'd play to his strengths and not rock the boat.

Perhaps Moore, in his next two outings, had to be pushed a little to give Bond a harder edge. That does not mean he did not do it well.

AVTAK, admittedly, was a misfire not just due to Moore's age and performance but the entire bloody concept. EON was trying desperately to make the series young and hip again, yet almost everyone in the first hour of the movie is OLD. It's surprising that they would experience such an artistic misfire after four straight successes.

[Xenobia]

Felix...I only have one thing to say to you:

When are you joining the SPCRM?

Thank you for your post!

-- Xenobia

[Felix's lighter]

Hmm... hoped I'd get a few more responses to this. Everyone must agree - that's a good thing!

By the way, Xenobia, how do I join?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

to me having grown up in the moore era, he was bond but then pierce came along and moore goes to #2. but if you think about it moore really was bond in all ways except when it came to fighting...he could never pull that off to well

[Felix's lighter]

"moore really was bond in all ways except when it came to fighting...he could never pull that off to well"

That's generally true, but the fight scenes in FYEO and OP seem to be the exceptions. I recall some particularly intense hand-to-hand combat at the end of FYEO in particular.

[1q2w3e4r]

Fleming's Bond was a ruthless killer. Fleming described him as a blunt government instrument. The killing of the Mexican at the beginning of Goldfinger is a good example of this as is the story Bond tells about obtaining his OO status.

I think you'll find Moore climbed a very small portion of the rockwall in FYEO he was terrified of heights and John Glen begged and pleaded and basically told him he had to do it.

In regards to Fleming picking him, I can see it in his early work in The Saint, but he plays Bond much lighter than he did Simon Templer in the 60s. Especially the early series.

Comedic timing Moore was good at. But Connery pulls the humor off in all his films, not two or three.

I don't believe that Moore was consistant throughout his stint, especially not more so than Connery. Connery looks bored as **** in YOLT but he's still easily Bond. He looks more interested in DAF and rocks through his first four films and in DN to TB you can see his evoloution of Bond or "Bond's growing expertise."

I'm not going to mention MR or hold it against Moore. But incidently, I quite enjoy a few elements of Live and Let Die, except for Sherrif Pepper and the **** with the plane its not a bad film. But his inexperience shows, no matter. I thought it would have been a really good first entry if Hamilton took it Moore seriously and chopped the crappy ending, and the bit above. Nice elements of Fleming's stories in there.

I think Rog did a good job. SPY was good, but I think with changes LALD could have challanged it. Pity his last few films are known for him hanging on to long. But it's true. Only bad thing about Roger's era is that it makes it harder to get past the bad puns and one liners, over the top action and outragousness and make a more serious film. TLD and LTK no doubt suffered because audiences were used to Moore's light humour rather than Tim's approach more parallel with Connery's.

Still. Wouldn't have a series without him

[AAMD11]

Moore is my fav Bond for many reasons. One of these reasons is that Moore seems more swave than the rest of the Bonds, I like all his movies for that reason, then there are many more reasons but i wont get into that now. I like all Bond actors but Moore has the upper hand on all of them in my opinion.

[Xenobia]

For Felix and for everyone else:

You join the SPCRM just by saying you want in, and then in your signature, add that you are a member. That's it!



-- Xenobia

[Jamie007]

Moore was a terrific Bond. It was the scripting that let him down.

[Dr Noah]

When ever I read a Fleming novel it is Moore's Bond that I "see", which is odd since Connery is my favourite. I guess Moore just captures Fleming's Bond the best.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by 1q2w3e4r

I think you'll find Moore climbed a very small portion of the rockwall in FYEO he was terrified of heights and John Glen begged and pleaded and basically told him he had to do it.

Yes, this is covered in the "Inside For Your Eyes Only" documentary on the DVD. Roger Moore was extremely reluctant to attempt the rock climbing stuff and if memory recalls correctly he mentions on the documentary that alcohol helped calm his nerves.

[General Koskov]

Ah, good old alcohol...what can't it do?

I just wish we could see a drunk brawl between Moore and Glover.

But Moore was good, no doubt. Just had really crappy films to play Bond in...why didn't he pull a Brosnan and ask Cubby to cut the funhouses, and Bondolas?

[DLibrasnow]

I grew up on the Roger Moore Bond movies so I think that when Roger Moore was making great movies, he was making great movies (FYEO and TSWLM) and when he made bad 007 movies they were real stinkers (TMWTGG and MR).

[11 11]

Well compared to the ones who have followed him he was damn good.

[zencat]

I loved Roger Moore. He was James Bond to me for a long time. I feel like Moore is underrated and unappreciated. But I think if people revisit his movies and stop listening to the Connery-was-the-only-Bond dogma, you

[DLibrasnow]

Roger Moore felt very comfortable in the role of 007, which is something that cannot be said of Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton. Brosnan always seems bored with the role and a lot of his line delivery feels flat - that's something that could never be said of Roger Moore.
For a whole generation, Roger Moore IS James Bond.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

he is to me, and i think as well the reason he did so well is because he was british -none of the other guys have that and it makes a big difference how better to play someone british than be british your self

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
he is to me, and i think as well the reason he did so well is because he was british -none of the other guys have that and it makes a big difference   how better to play someone british than be british your self

Surely you mean English. Sean Connery was Scottish and Tim Dalton was Welsh. Both Scotland and Wales are part of Great Britain and therefore Connery and Dalton are both British by definition.

[Xenobia]

Zencat: I agree with almost everything you have said above, particularly your comments about the Roger Moore strut. The character of James Bond is a lot more than just his masculinity and his virility. Ian Fleming meant for Bond to be the protypical British hero, and Fleming succeeded in spades. In that we can appreciate Moore's Bond for his Britishness and not just for his mascuelinity, tells me Moore hit the right note in his performance.

That being said, as much as I love Roger Moore, all the most beautiful creatures ever put on this planet looks the best in a tux. And since you and Bryce are not playing Bond right now, that means Pierce Brosnan looks the best in a tux.

[zencat]

Originally posted by Xenobia
...And since you and Bryce are not playing Bond right now, that means Pierce Brosnan looks the best in a tux.

Ha! Thank you, Xen. I will play Bond when you can be my Bond Girl.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Surely you mean English. Sean Connery was Scottish and Tim Dalton was Welsh. Both Scotland and Wales are part of Great Britain and therefore Connery and Dalton are both British by definition.

well now that u point out my little over sight, that is just what i meant ENGLISH

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
well now that u point out my little over sight, that is just what i meant   ENGLISH

Not a problem

[1q2w3e4r]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
well now that u point out my little over sight, that is just what i meant   ENGLISH

Bond's not actually "British" He's born in Glencoe in the highlands of Scotland to a Scottish father and French-Swiss mother. Just thought you'd like to know. Comes from Fleming's novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

[zencat]

But Fleming said he did this as a nod to Sean Connery.

I think Fleming always saw Bond as a true blue Englishman, much like himself.

[1q2w3e4r]

People bring that up. And I disagree. I think it's Moonraker (i'll have to check.) But Bond admits to himself that there is something "un-English" about him.

Not sure if you remember reading it. But Im positive it's in one of the early novels and NOT in OHMSS or after. Fleming had Scottish herritage that he was proud of remember, and his first fiancee was a Swiss girl Monique.

[DLibrasnow]

Yes, Fleming did have Scottish heritage. He did say, after seeing Sean Connery play the character, that Connery was "perfect" for the role.

[zencat]

I didn't know Fleming had Scottish heritage. I stand corrected.

[DLibrasnow]

It's okay zencat....I didn't know until I saw the Ian Fleming documentary on TLD DVD.

[Jriv71]

As to the original post---goosebumps. Right on the money. Really, all 5 guys have been superb, even if Connery and Moore hung on too long.
But the point about Moore being Fleming's original choice is a great one.
The point about Moore consistently getting better is right on, whereas, yes, Connery consistently got worse.
And his comic stuff was a direct offshoot of Connery's, yet Felix's Lighter is right...why was Moore chastised for doing the same thing, while Connery was annointed 'Fleming's Bond'.
I don't know that Moore's my fav, but I'm running home tonight to watch The Spy Who Loved Me.

[masTers]

Can I join SPCRM?