124 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

It's pretty obvious that we have Moore to thank for saving the Bond series. I can't imagine people like John Gavin and Burt Reynolds doing remotely as well. Moore was exactly the right man at exactly the right time.

Fine statement Loomis. Most definitely agreed when you look at the other possible contenders. Roger really isn't always treated "easy", but he does so well with his self-depreciating humor.

[Kristatos]

I am Bond Fan since 1974, when i was 12 years old. So i grow up with Roger and i probably loved him too.
I think, if the series has stayed in the 70s in the same style as before DAF, the serie would have been dead until 1979. the big change with TSWLM saved the Bond Films for the Future a first time.
If GE made the same for the serie can be discussed. I always saw Brosnan before GE as the "born James Bond", but i expected a lighter acting from him, probably not completely as Roger, but not such a dark and grey film like GE was.
I hate it so much, that in the Brosnan Era, the Roger Moore Era was not mentioned, the made only in the press the connection to the Connery Era.

I also like very much the Dalton Films, beside i was never a Fan who looked at the serie so much serious. For me is a difference between the Books and the Films. I have not read all of the Fleming Books, but i see, when i read his stories a british Gentleman of the 50s with a Hat and so on. Thats totally different.
When i read the Gardner Books, i saw Roger and in the Benson Books i saw Pierce.
But i am very sorry, that he not used his talent of humour as he could.
Because i saw him primarily in a row to David Niven and Roger Moore, and not to Connery. I think other people though equally, when they made with him "Around the world in 80 Days".

[DLibrasnow]

Great post Kristatos and I agree with you.

[SPECTRENumber1]

Here we are, the hardest of the hardcore Bond fans. We're obsessives, purists, Fleming fiends.... We know what Bond "ought to be", and heaven knows we're vocal as soon as filmmakers and novelists deviate from the True Path. We know why Fleming's books were so special, why ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE isn't the dud Joe Blow thinks it is, why the Brosnan films - while entertaining and stupendously successful - aren't all they could and should have been....

But one thing baffles me: why are we so easy on Roger Moore?

I mean, I know we don't all think with one mind (thankfully), but, by rights, shouldn't Moore be Enemy Number One for us Supergeeks of Bondage? Shouldn't we hate him and all his films stand for? Consider:

- His Bond was mostly a million miles away from Fleming's (and Gardner's, and Benson's). Connery, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan at least tried hard to give us a decent enough approximation of Fleming's ruthless alpha male and coldhearted killer. Moore, by contrast, was avuncular, dapper, decent, jocular, jokey, posh, smug, smutty, ultra-English (to my mind, Moore's Bond is a comic take on Englishness to rival Peter Sellers' Clouseau's sendup of Frenchness), unathletic, and seemingly late middle-aged right from birth (can you picture Moore as a child? I can't).... everything Fleming's Bond isn't.

- Not only did Moore take the most diabolical liberties with the character created by Ian Fleming (praise His name), he compounded his sins by clinging to the Bond role until he was so old and frail that the filmmakers had to - both figuratively and literally - escort him to the door. Pushing 58, he had the effrontery (or, depending on one's point of view, the cojones) to play 007 for the seventh time.

- Of Moore's seven Bond flicks, three (THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, MOONRAKER and A VIEW TO A KILL) are commonly considered among the most juvenile and inept entries of the entire 20-film series.

So, why, when Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and even Connery are routinely bashed on these forums, are we so darned nice to Moore the whole time? We roast Benson and Gardner for their crimes against Fleming's creation, yet tend to let Moore off scot-free for his.

None of this is intended as an attack on Moore, by the way. Actually, I love the guy - I find him more entertaining to watch than any of the other Bond actors, and I guess I've just answered my own question: Moore is so much fun, dang it, that the mockery he makes of Bond becomes irrelevant.

Put another way, so gleefully and blatantly does Moore attempt to get away with murder that we're ready to forgive him anything.

Thoughts?

I have no idea Loomis. I don't really like Moore as Bond anyway. He's not ruthless enough, I mean, can you imagine Moore's Bond taking part in an assasination?

[Qwerty]

I could see Moore doing an assassination. Perhaps in The Man With The Golden Gun, not out of the question.

[DLibrasnow]

Yes....Sandor, Stromberg and Locque come to mind.

[Atariboy]

Roger is the man.. that's why we're so easy on him!

Seriously, alot of us grew up with him as James Bond (even right after Dalton's short run, Moore still felt like the real Bond). Not only did he fit in perfectly with that funky '70s style, but he was the perfect marriage for the 'decadent' 80s too. It's hard to explain, but he was absolutely the right man at the right time.

[Qwerty]

Yes....Sandor, Stromberg and Locque come to mind.

Definitely. He's killed on the spot before like that many times. Could see an official assassination as a possibility also, such as Dalton in The Living Daylights.

[YOLT]

I really think that they wasted Roger. Its just as simple as the Newtons rule. Sean Connery will always be the best. Thats not my idea but its already been decided. Moore was perfect in FYEO but they always maked the films comical in such a way. Look at Moonraker. Until the space scenes the film is great, and then its not Connery its Moore lets ruin it they said. Yes I am blaming the producers for not letting Moore to be the best!!!

[Qwerty]

If your opinion, fine. But Moonraker, which is bashed too much wasn't ruined by the Outer Space scenes. They didn't waste Roger at all.

[YOLT]

If your opinion, fine. But Moonraker, which is bashed too much wasn't ruined by the Outer Space scenes. They didn't waste Roger at all.

I think they did. Well but its the truth. After Connery everyone was in some part a loser. Thats the truth, I am not saying this because Connery is the best, because its the truth.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

I don't care what anyone says - I love the Roger Moore 007 films!

well said snowie

especially a view to a kill, that was great

[BONDFINESSE 007]

roger did well for his era no doubt about that and no other actor could have made it work except moore


as for his age that he gets bashed on all the time his critics always go back to a view to a kill, well i saw that movie the first time in 1985 at the age of 18 and at that time i did not know how old roger was and could less...all i knew was that i was enjoying a great bond film that was fun and entertaining and roger was giving me my moneys worth and then some



he was bond to me when i was growing up and you cant throw those good times away

[Qwerty]

If your opinion, fine. But Moonraker, which is bashed too much wasn't ruined by the Outer Space scenes. They didn't waste Roger at all.

I think they did. Well but its the truth. After Connery everyone was in some part a loser. Thats the truth, I am not saying this because Connery is the best, because its the truth.

You're saying Connery being the the best Bond is the truth? Seems more like an opinion to me. I like Connery as Bond quite a lot, but I think Roger Moore actually was a better Bond in some ways. They didn't waste Roger in Moonraker, they tried something new, Outerspace, and it worked out really well IMO.

[Loomis]

You're saying Connery being the the best Bond is the truth? Seems more like an opinion to me.

Well, it's an opinion almost universally held, so I guess that to all intents and purposes it is the truth.

[Qwerty]

You're saying Connery being the the best Bond is the truth? Seems more like an opinion to me.

Well, it's an opinion almost universally held, so I guess that to all intents and purposes it is the truth.

No, I cannot agree. Not the truth, there's no proof. Perhaps the most people like Connery as the best, but that doesn't guarentee him being the best Bond.

[Loomis]

Neither is there any "proof" that Ian Fleming was the best Bond novelist. It's not an established fact. Still, I've never seen anyone seriously argue that, say, Raymond Benson was better.

Connery was the best. This is a clear consensus reached by millions of people over a number of decades. It is not mere opinion, subject to the whims of fashion.

BTW, there's no proof that Shakespeare was the greatest writer in English literature, either.

[Goldenpussy]

The reason I like Roger a little better than Connery is because Moore enjoyed being in the role and never seemed to get tired of it. Connery on the other side was showing his boredom with the role as Thunderball rolled along, then YOLT was complete boredom as well as DAF. What I dont understand is how can so many people regard Connery as the best Bond when he got exhausted of the role so quickly? Moore played Bond with such charm, moviation, and was just happy in the role. Moore does have his cold-blooded Fleming moments-to describe a few. In LALD Bond threatens to kill Rosie Carver after sleeping with her, slapping around Scaramanga's girlfriend trying to dig up information, hiding Goodnight in the closet while he sleeps with Maud Adams, the killing of Sandor, the killing of Locque, Stromberg, forcing Octopussy to sleep with him after telling her "We are two of a kind." In fact Moore has more cold-blooded killings and treatment of women than Connery.

[YOLT]

You're saying Connery being the the best Bond is the truth? Seems more like an opinion to me.

Well, it's an opinion almost universally held, so I guess that to all intents and purposes it is the truth.

No, I cannot agree. Not the truth, there's no proof. Perhaps the most people like Connery as the best, but that doesn't guarentee him being the best Bond.

I really like Moore. He has done great films, in his way, but when its Bond, everybody or mainly everyone will put Connery a feet ahead. Its just the reality. This doesnt means that Roger is bad. I think that he handled the job and made 007 films a serie of films. If we are watching Bond now its beacuse Roger is sucessfull. He really saved 007 from being related to only Connery. But reality is reality, Connery's films in overall or his period are the best. This is unquestionable. Roger maybe better than Connery, and he is in some films I think than Connery.

And I really think that the producers ruined Rogers films in some way. Whats the use of the Tarzan Yell in OP, or Jaws love in MR. Moore is a fun Bond but these little things just ruins his films I think. And I dont think that he said "lets let Jaws have a girlfriend".

Connery may not be the best. But his films are in general. Its the TRUTH.

[Qwerty]

Connery may not be the best. But his films are in general. Its the TRUTH.

No, it's not. There is fan appeal for all of the Bond films, alot may believe Connery's are the best, alot may believe Moore's, etc..

It's always an opinion.

[YOLT]

Connery may not be the best. But his films are in general. Its the TRUTH.

No, it's not. There is fan appeal for all of the Bond films, alot may believe Connery's are the best, alot may believe Moore's, etc..

It's always an opinion.

Allright then a question? When wast the spy-mania?

No not the 70s

[Qwerty]

Connery may not be the best. But his films are in general. Its the TRUTH.

No, it's not. There is fan appeal for all of the Bond films, alot may believe Connery's are the best, alot may believe Moore's, etc..

It's always an opinion.

Allright then a question? When wast the spy-mania?

No not the 70s

Well that's obviously because the Bond films started the spymania and the Bond films started in the 1960's, but not the 1970's. Just a matter of time.

[YOLT]

Its just impossible to think Bond without Connery. I am not saying that Roger is worse the Connery. Most of the time I think that Moore is the best. But not about its films. Bond wouldnt be here without a DrNo or From Russia With Love or Goldfinger. 60s are the peak of Bond, and I dont think that this will ever change. Its just the reality not my opinion.

[Qwerty]

Its just impossible to think Bond without Connery. I am not saying that Roger is worse the Connery. Most of the time I think that Moore is the best. But not about its films. Bond wouldnt be here without a DrNo or From Russia With Love or Goldfinger. 60s are the peak of Bond, and I dont think that this will ever change. Its just the reality not my opinion.

That's because Sean Connery started it all, so naturally his name is mentioned the most. What I find completely incredulous is that without Connery, Bond wouldn't be here. The 60's were the peak of Bond? Well that's when Bond was starting, there weren't the action films there are today.

[YOLT]

Its just impossible to think Bond without Connery. I am not saying that Roger is worse the Connery. Most of the time I think that Moore is the best. But not about its films. Bond wouldnt be here without a DrNo or From Russia With Love or Goldfinger. 60s are the peak of Bond, and I dont think that this will ever change. Its just the reality not my opinion.

That's because Sean Connery started it all, so naturally his name is mentioned the most. What I find completely incredulous is that without Connery, Bond wouldn't be here. The 60's were the peak of Bond? Well that's when Bond was starting, there weren't the action films there are today.

Look at the inflation adjusted revenues Qwerty. Thunderball is still in the lead. With far to reach. Isnt this tellin something. We now have more technology more people in the world. But none of the Bond films have reached the hight of TB. Its just the reality.

[Qwerty]

Its just impossible to think Bond without Connery. I am not saying that Roger is worse the Connery. Most of the time I think that Moore is the best. But not about its films. Bond wouldnt be here without a DrNo or From Russia With Love or Goldfinger. 60s are the peak of Bond, and I dont think that this will ever change. Its just the reality not my opinion.

That's because Sean Connery started it all, so naturally his name is mentioned the most. What I find completely incredulous is that without Connery, Bond wouldn't be here. The 60's were the peak of Bond? Well that's when Bond was starting, there weren't the action films there are today.

Look at the inflation adjusted revenues Qwerty. Thunderball is still in the lead. With far to reach. Isnt this tellin something. We now have more technology more people in the world. But none of the Bond films have reached the hight of TB. Its just the reality.

That I will agree upon, no Bond film has reached the height of Thunderball's box office. Was it the most successful Bond film? Looking solely on a box offixe perspective? Yes, but only on that perspective.

[DLibrasnow]

Look at the inflation adjusted revenues Qwerty. Thunderball is still in the lead. With far to reach. Isnt this tellin something. We now have more technology more people in the world. But none of the Bond films have reached the hight of TB. Its just the reality.

Not to mention the fact that whole new markets are open to James Bond now! In the 1960s,70s and most of the 80s the Bond movies were banned in some countries. Those countries now release 007 movies so Connery and Moore made more money with a smaller pool of possible viewers!

[Qwerty]

Look at the inflation adjusted revenues Qwerty. Thunderball is still in the lead. With far to reach. Isnt this tellin something. We now have more technology more people in the world. But none of the Bond films have reached the hight of TB. Its just the reality.

Not to mention the fact that whole new markets are open to James Bond now! In the 1960s,70s and most of the 80s the Bond movies were banned in some countries. Those countries now release 007 movies so Connery and Moore made more money with a smaller pool of possible viewers!

Quite. I'd say chalking it up to the series being newer and fresher then than it is now would explain some of that. With the Kremlin finally getting them for example.

Just today, the action movie market has literally exploded with competition. The 60's Bond filsm have spoofs, now we have Jason Bourne and xXx. Even the 80's had Indy and Die Hard.

[Loomis]

Not to mention the fact that whole new markets are open to James Bond now! In the 1960s,70s and most of the 80s the Bond movies were banned in some countries.

The Bond films were still banned outright in China when I lived in Beijing in the 90s. However, it was possible to pick up illegal video copies (usually copied from Hong Kong or Taiwanese laderdiscs) if you knew who to talk to. I well remember "scoring" OCTOPUSSY in an illegal shop selling illegal videotapes and cassettes (no DVDs or CDs) that was supposedly run by the son of a Communist Party official who enjoyed protection from the police - shades of Colonel Moon! Of course, OCTOPUSSY would hardly have been my first choice, but, hey, any port in a storm! My best Bond viewing of that period was a birthday bootleg video screening of GOLDENEYE arranged by my girlfriend.

Things have changed a bit since then. I believe the first Bond film granted an official release in China was either TOMORROW NEVER DIES or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (note how TND sucks up to China). (GOLDENEYE was banned, allegedly because the government took exception to Brosnan's remarks on nuclear testing, or something like that.)

I believe, too, that DIE ANOTHER DAY took as much money in China as in Taiwan, and more than in Hong Kong! It also made more in the People's Republic than in Singapore, New Zealand, Turkey, Portugal and Israel! Postively shocking, as someone once said.

However, most people seem to watch films on pirate DVD or VCD - cheaper to buy one of those than a cinema ticket, apparently. A couple of years ago, I was in a bar in Shanghai and a woman came in with a basket of illegal DVDs to flog to tourists. I saw one guy pick up the complete Bond box set for the equivalent of a few dollars or pounds.... after beating her down to what he considered a reasonable price, of course.

I also remember a club in Shanghai where they projected the DVD menu screen for LICENCE TO KILL onto the walls as decoration (!).

Anyway, Darren is correct in stating that "Connery and Moore made more money with a smaller pool of possible viewers!" The assertion that the Brosnan era was the most successful era of Bondage is, I'm afraid, nothing more than a self-comforting lie on the part of Brosnan fans.

[Qwerty]

Things have changed a bit since then. I believe the first Bond film granted an official release in China was either TOMORROW NEVER DIES or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (note how TND sucks up to China). (GOLDENEYE was banned, allegedly because the government took exception to Brosnan's remarks on nuclear testing, or something like that.)

I had thought it was Tomorrow Never Dies, I seem to remember The World Is Not Enough not being the first. Sucks up? Well maybe with that kind of a plot, wouldn't say sucks up though, but is just "friendly" to that country.

Just didn't seem too apparent to label it as sucking up.