8 replies to this topic

[goldengun]

Do you think that Moore's Bond would have been better received if he was rough'd up a bit more?

I have read a lot that some think that Moore portrayed a invincible Bond, never getting his suit or hair messed up? I know that Dalton's Bond gets roughed up quite a bit in LTK - would Moore's Bond be great if he was bloodied and battered like Dalton?

Did you guys view Bond as infallible?

[Dr Noah]

"would Moore's Bond be great if he was bloodied and battered like Dalton?"

Moore's Bond IS great...Dalton's on the other hand...

[Sir James]

I think Moore's Bond was well recieved in his time. It is only in reterospect that he gets the boot. Perhaps if he roughed up others a bit more would give him a more positive historical look.

[RITZ]

The thought of Moore bloodied and bruised is not a pretty thought. He always came out clean with barely a scratch and thats what made him unique.

[Daltonitus]

Moore would not be suited at all to getting dirty or cut.

He is not rugged enough

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by goldengun
Do you think that Moore's Bond would have been better received if he was rough'd up a bit more?
I have read a lot that some think that Moore portrayed a invincible Bond, never getting his suit or hair messed up?  I know that Dalton's Bond gets roughed up quite a bit in LTK - would Moore's Bond be great if he was bloodied and battered like Dalton?
Did you guys view Bond as infallible?

They tried that in the first 3 films , especially "LALD" and 'TMWTGG" . Richard Maibaum once said that was what was hard to write for Moore's Bond. He was not rough, tough like Connery . His natural talent laid in light comedy. He was not a action guy. Then of course my two favorite Moore films are "Gold" and "Shout at the Devil" both directed by Peter Hunt . Who was "offered" TSWLM but turned it down.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Sir James
I think Moore's Bond was well recieved in his time. It is only in reterospect that he gets the boot. Perhaps if he roughed up others a bit more would give him a more positive historical look.

I can't quite agree with you on this one, Sir James. Being that you are younger, you wouldn't remember a lot of the criticism Moore took at the time he was Bond. While he was accepted by the public as Bond and his films made a lot of money, he always seemed to have the shadow of Connery hanging over him.

Critics would constantly point out how much better the Connery films were even while they gave marginal recommendations of the Moore Bonds and a lot of the fans would also say this, although the tone of his films also contributed to this.

I think since we've had two Bonds since, many people are seeing Moore's Bond for what it was -- a change of pace that may have helped the series in the long run. For every person who cringes at the though of MR or AVTAK, there's one who has fond memories of it, as evidenced by many CBN members. After all, don't most people say they like Brosnan because he brings the best qualities of Connery and Moore to his Bond?

[Johnson Galore]

I grew up with Roger Moore and recognized him as James Bond. It wasn't until years later, around the time that Dalton took over the role, that I even paid much attention to the fact that Connery was Bond. When I saw Connery's films, it didn't feel quite right. He was so dry. Of course, now I find all "Bonds" brought something really interesting to the role.
However, I never understand how Roger is always known as the one that wasn't beat up enough. Each of his films have scenes of great danger to him and he always got a chance to show us the dark-side of Bond. I almost have to believe that Roger pulled off the part so well that the only thing people remember is his skill with the comedic lines, because that is what set him apart from some of the other Bonds (namely Dalton and Brosnan, on this point). Honestly, the things I don't like about his films had nothing to do with him at all- Lawrence of Arabia, California Girls, Jaws in Moonraker, etc.

[kevrichardson]

Well many consider Connery to be the "Original James Bond".And for some the only one. Connery had the distinction of starring the first five(5) films which establish Bond as a internatonal symbol . Plus he is the only actor to personally have known Ian Fleming . He also benifited from the directions of Terance Young , for three of the 5 films. Whether you like it or not Connery was in 4 "classic" Bond films. Dr.No , FRWL , GF , TB , each help shape James Bond in the minds of the public. after DAF , many people came to Bond through Roger Moore . The Moore movies are good in themselves . Yet they lack the "gritty edge" of the Connery films. Yet they made more money than the Connery films. Also Moore had a longer reign as Bond , with his tenure in the role the 2 year rule for Bond films was in effect. I love the first 3 Moore Bond's "LALD" , "TMWTGG" , "TSWLM" . Moonraker is a bit disappointing , still compared to most films from 1979 it was great entertainment . FYEO is a classic like "FRWL" , in gritty , edgier Bond of Connery. In fact outside of "TSWLM" it may be Moore's best . Octopussy is good like "TB" ,yet "AVTAK" is considered the low point of Moore's Bond.