98 replies to this topic

[00-FAN008]

Well how do you define "fitting the role" then? You have to start with a definition of what the role entails before you can go making comments about who's the best.

Roger Moore had that Bondian charm, he was charming, suave, sophisticated and he was from the UK. I dare you to think of one thing that makes him different from Bond. He fits the profile almost perfectly. So sue me!

Edited by 00-FAN008, 03 August 2004 - 04:22 AM.

[Harmsway]

Well how do you define "fitting the role" then? You have to start with a definition of what the role entails before you can go making comments about who's the best.

Roger Moore had that Bondian charm, he was charming, suave, sophisticated and he was from the UK. I dare you to think of one thing that makes him different from Bond. He fits the profile almost perfectly. So sue me!

Well, "charming" really isn't how I define the character of Bond. I define Bond as sexist, cruel, uncaring, cold, sardonic, hedonistic and incorrigible. No "charming" in there. So, no, for me, Moore really doesn't fit the Bond role.

[Qwerty]

Roger Moore was more of Ian Fleming's James Bond, than Sean Connery in some ways. That's one way I see it.

[Harmsway]

Roger Moore was more of Ian Fleming's James Bond, than Sean Connery in some ways. That's one way I see it.

How so? The only two films where Moore plays anything resembling Fleming is LALD and TWMTGG - two films out of his career as Bond. Hardly enough to establish him as Flemingesque.

And even then, he was still riding off of Connery's performance. Anything that Moore did resembling Fleming's Bond, Connery did better. The brutality, the harshness, the bastardry...

Edited by Harmsway, 03 August 2004 - 04:39 AM.

[Qwerty]

Roger Moore was more of Ian Fleming's James Bond, than Sean Connery in some ways. That's one way I see it.

How so? The only two films where Moore plays anything resembling Fleming is LALD and TWMTGG - two films out of his career as Bond. Hardly enough to establish him as Flemingesque.

And even then, he was still riding off of Connery's performance. Anything that Moore did resembling Fleming's Bond, Connery did better. The brutality, the harshness, the bastardry...

Roger Moore's Bond in general. And I firmly do not think he was on Connery's coattails. I like them both alot, but Roger seems better.

[Harmsway]

Roger Moore was more of Ian Fleming's James Bond, than Sean Connery in some ways. That's one way I see it.

How so? The only two films where Moore plays anything resembling Fleming is LALD and TWMTGG - two films out of his career as Bond. Hardly enough to establish him as Flemingesque.

And even then, he was still riding off of Connery's performance. Anything that Moore did resembling Fleming's Bond, Connery did better. The brutality, the harshness, the bastardry...

Roger Moore's Bond in general. And I firmly do not think he was on Connery's coattails. I like them both alot, but Roger seems better.

Do you mind elaborating on how Moore is Fleming's Bond? I don't see much of a resemblance.

[Qwerty]

When I compare Moore and Connery, I see more of an English spy in Moore than I do in Connery. Even though both are candidates. Moore seems to be more of a British agent, Connery just seems more harsh, etc..

[Harmsway]

When I compare Moore and Connery, I see more of an English spy in Moore than I do in Connery. Even though both are candidates. Moore seems to be more of a British agent, Connery just seems more harsh, etc..

Well, Fleming's Bond was rather un-English IMO. Made up of Swiss/Scottish ancestry, didn't like tea, etc. Moore is the definitive "English gentleman". That's just not what Fleming's Bond was.

[Qwerty]

When I compare Moore and Connery, I see more of an English spy in Moore than I do in Connery. Even though both are candidates. Moore seems to be more of a British agent, Connery just seems more harsh, etc..

Well, Fleming's Bond was rather un-English IMO. Made up of Swiss/Scottish ancestry, didn't like tea, etc. Moore is the definitive "English gentleman". That's just not what Fleming's Bond was.

I rather see Fleming's Bond that way. Look, I think Moore and Connery both are fantastic Bond's the difference between them both for me is very minimal.

[Jim]

Well, Fleming's Bond was rather un-English IMO. Made up of Swiss/Scottish ancestry, didn't like tea, etc. Moore is the definitive "English gentleman". That's just not what Fleming's Bond was.

I rather see Fleming's Bond that way.

Then you claim a different insight into his character than Fleming, who didn't see it that way? Didn't write it that way? The point about Bond is not that he is an English gentleman but he is a psychopathic thug with a heart of marble playing at being an English gentleman, which is far more interesting.

Nobody's perfect, but Connery is closest. Although one must recognise that Fleming changed the character in the last few books to suit Connery's portrayal (although he didn't have to change it that much), so Connery does have that advantage I suppose. Maybe if Moore or Lazenby or someone dressed up in a rabbit suit had been first, he would have changed the character to suit that, but they weren't so I guess it's time to face chronology.

[YOLT]

The othere's helped keep it popular but if it wasn't for connery, the series may have just lasted 2-3 films.

We'll never know, but I'm not sure about this. How it would have turned out if Moore started.

There can be billion of IFs. But the reality is 60s was the golden years of Bond, in which Connery was Bond. After the 60s up to now, Bond is not a 'setter' but a 'taker'. This doesnt means that Moore, Dalton or Brosnan are weak. Connery had the chance to be the first and used it very good, and 'helped' Bond to reach its peak in the 60s.

[Bond_Bishop]

I think like this:

1. Sean Connery, he is Bond. He has the style, he has the grittiness, he has the wits. Best performance: Thunderball
2. Pierce Brosnan, a great mix of Connery's and Moore's styles. He is a great Bond and is actually the best Bond after Connery. Best performance: Die Another Day
3. Roger Moore, he was too funny, too happy to get to 2nd place. He wasn't good and coldblood as either Connery or Brosnan was but he is just faboulous in all his movies. Live and Let Die, MWTGG and AVTAK was Moore's poorest perfomances but he is great in the rest. Best performance: For Your Eyes Only
4. George Lazenby, he didn't exactly looked like a Bond. He had a too light voice and he was just superb in the action scenes. OHMSS is one of the best Bond movies and a lot of it comes from Lazenby's perfect perfomance. But as Moore he isn't that gritty Bond needs to be to look good on the screen. Best perfomance (what do you think): OHMSS
5. Timothy Dalton, too much gritty, his Bond, James Bond sounds awful and he barely smiles. But in The Living Daylights he is great as Bond but he isn't enough. He is very unstylish on a way. Best Perfomance: Living Daylights

That's all folks!!!

[Qwerty]

The othere's helped keep it popular but if it wasn't for connery, the series may have just lasted 2-3 films.

We'll never know, but I'm not sure about this. How it would have turned out if Moore started.

There can be billion of IFs. But the reality is 60s was the golden years of Bond, in which Connery was Bond. After the 60s up to now, Bond is not a 'setter' but a 'taker'. This doesnt means that Moore, Dalton or Brosnan are weak. Connery had the chance to be the first and used it very good, and 'helped' Bond to reach its peak in the 60s.

As I said before, that's because he was the first Bond then. The James Bind films practically started a genre all on their own, so of course they're not going to have any competition at first. It makes sense that the golden years were a time when there weren't any other rival films, which didn't really get going until the later 60's. And then there was an abundance of them.

[Qwerty]

I have my favorite but I hope it will be the next one!!!!!!!

Haha. I never thought of putting it like that. Suppose that's a good way to look to future.

[Loomis]

The othere's helped keep it popular but if it wasn't for connery, the series may have just lasted 2-3 films.

We'll never know, but I'm not sure about this. How it would have turned out if Moore started.

There can be billion of IFs. But the reality is 60s was the golden years of Bond, in which Connery was Bond. After the 60s up to now, Bond is not a 'setter' but a 'taker'. This doesnt means that Moore, Dalton or Brosnan are weak. Connery had the chance to be the first and used it very good, and 'helped' Bond to reach its peak in the 60s.

As I said before, that's because he was the first Bond then. The James Bind films practically started a genre all on their own, so of course they're not going to have any competition at first. It makes sense that the golden years were a time when there weren't any other rival films, which didn't really get going until the later 60's. And then there was an abundance of them.

There's something you're forgetting, Qwerty:

The 60s films were the best of the series. Not just the first and most commercially successful, but the best.

In terms of cinematic quality, the decade that gave us DR. NO - ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has not been rivalled by any other decade of Bondage and never will be.

[Qwerty]

They are fantastic films, I agree. But I don't seem them any better than such films as The Spy Who Loved Me or Octopussy for that example. Not judging by favorites, but being as good a quality.

Who knows, maybe the 60's Bond films are the best and I've been arguing this too long. Just don't think they're all that glory when compared with the others. Some are better, some are not.

[Loomis]

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and OCTOPUSSY just aren't in the same league as any of the 60s Bond films. Not even the same damn sport (pointless PULP FICTION reference there, sorry about that ).

I've never cared for OCTOPUSSY, but I'll concede (contradicting myself slightly ) that TSWLM comes close in quality to what I'd call the two "lesser" 60s Bond films (THUNDERBALL and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), but only close.

Every single Bond film of the 60s is a copper-bottomed classic, with DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE in the highest, four-film, category of Absolutely Unsurpassable All Time Greats.

No other decade compares. The 70s had TSWLM, but that's the only Bond flick of that decade widely acknowledged as a classic (I myself prefer THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, but I know that I'm pretty much on my own there; and while MOONRAKER has a lot of fans, myself included, it's still generally considered a bit of a dud).

How about the 80s? You say OCTOPUSSY is a classic, Qwerty. I'd disagree, but let's pretend it is. And then there's THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Others might substitute FOR YOUR EYES ONLY for TLD, but I think most people would agree that there were two Bond classics in the 80s, or three at the most. LICENCE TO KILL is really only a "cult favourite", and while there may be those who view A VIEW TO A KILL as a masterpiece, I'm sure they're very, very few in number.

The 90s? GOLDENEYE. That's it. I really don't believe that too many would seriously argue that TOMORROW NEVER DIES and/or THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH could compete with the 60s films in terms of quality.

No, the 60s is THE classic era. Absolutely no "if"s or "but"s. You're free to disagree, of course, but I warn you: you'd be wrong.

[Qwerty]

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and OCTOPUSSY just aren't in the same league as any of the 60s Bond films. Not even the same damn sport (pointless PULP FICTION reference there, sorry about that ).

I've never cared for OCTOPUSSY, but I'll concede (contradicting myself slightly ) that TSWLM comes close in quality to what I'd call the two "lesser" 60s Bond films (THUNDERBALL and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), but only close.

I think they both are. In terms of being the best Bond starring in them and quality, The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy, are both far better than some of the Connery films, such as You Only Live Twice.

Not close, surpasses.

[Loomis]

The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy, are both far better than some of the Connery films, such as You Only Live Twice.

Even if that were true - and I don't think it is - it doesn't make a case against the 60s being by far the best decade of cinematic Bondage in terms of artistic merit.

[Qwerty]

The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy, are both far better than some of the Connery films, such as You Only Live Twice.

Even if that were true - and I don't think it is - it doesn't make a case against the 60s being by far the best decade of cinematic Bondage in terms of artistic merit.

I think it is. I wasn't comparing it to the 60's decade though. Yes, it's obvious, Thunderball is a better and more classic film than A View To A Kill for example. But some of the 60's films, classic as they may be being the earliest are not always better than all of the others.

[Loomis]

But some of the 60's films, classic as they may be being the earliest are not always better than all of the others.

No, but I repeat: in terms of cinematic quality, the decade that gave us DR. NO - ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has not been rivalled by any other decade of Bondage and never will be.

By the way, I don't say that the 60s films are classics because they were the earliest. They're classics because they're artistically the most accomplished. Quite simply, they leave all the subsequent Bond films standing on every single level: writing, directing, cinematography, music, production design, performances....

You cannot compare people like Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, John Barry, Ken Adam, Freddie Young (cinematographer of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE) and, yes, the young Sean Connery, to people like Purvis and Wade and David Arnold. The people who made the 60s Bonds were absolute giants in their fields. Might as well try to argue that Raymond Benson was as good as Ian Fleming.

Are you against the concept of a "golden age" for the cinematic Bond, Qwerty?

[Qwerty]

You cannot compare people like Richard Maibaum, Terence Young, John Barry, Ken Adam, Freddie Young (cinematographer of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE) and, yes, the young Sean Connery, to people like Purvis and Wade and David Arnold. The people who made the 60s Bonds were absolute giants in their fields. Might as well try to argue that Raymond Benson was as good as Ian Fleming.

Are you against the concept of a "golden age" for the cinematic Bond, Qwerty?

Not at all Loomis. I however, do not look at the Golden Age from the same vein you do. I don't think the Golden Age of the Bond films have to be just surrounding one James Bond, really doesn't seem credulous to me. Sure, some of the Connery films are literally outstanding. The same can be said for some of the Roger Moore films. Personally, I think the golden age extended throughout Connery and Moore's turns as James Bond.

Do I think Raymond Benson is a good a writer as Ian Fleming? No. Do I think David Arnold is a better composer than John Barry? No, but for both of these points, some people do.

I just don't like it when it's said that "these exact Connery films are the best. No contest. Anything else said is wrong." For me, the Golden Age wasn't just Connery.

[Loomis]

I just don't like it when it's said that "these exact Connery films are the best. No contest. Anything else said is wrong." For me, the Golden Age wasn't just Connery.

And it wasn't just Connery for me, either. Note that I include ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE among the films of the golden age.

And there is, of course, one Connery film that doesn't deserve to be considered part of the golden age. I refer, of course, to DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. A fun movie, but hardly one of the all-time greats (unless you're freemo ). So much for Connery/"first Bond" purism, then.

And the fact (or perhaps I should write "the widely-held view") that the 60s was the golden age of the cinematic Bond is by no means a disgrace to the Bond films that came later.

Do I think it was essentially all downhill for 007 since 1969? Well, yes, I do. In fact, I believe it was all downhill after DR. NO - I feel that the first Bond film may well be the very best and that no other 007 flick really surpasses it.

But do I think they should have shut down the series for good after OHMSS? No. Do I think that there haven't been any decent Bond films since then? Again, no.

Up to and including OHMSS, though, the series really didn't put a foot wrong. All the films were excellent. After OHMSS, well, Bond films of very high quality have been the exception rather than the rule. Not even the most hardcore and generous Bond fan would argue that the franchise has consistently thrown up a real winner every single time out. Not since the 60s, at least.

[Qwerty]

I just don't like it when it's said that "these exact Connery films are the best. No contest. Anything else said is wrong." For me, the Golden Age wasn't just Connery.

And it wasn't just Connery for me, either. Note that I include ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE among the films of the golden age.

Yes, I know you're a huge fan of Dr. No, the first Bond film.

And there is, of course, one Connery film that doesn't deserve to be considered part of the golden age. I refer, of course, to DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. A fun movie, but hardly one of the all-time greats (unless you're freemo ). So much for Connery/"first Bond" purism, then.

Quite, a great film, although I know Freemo calls it a golden film, but it isn't as classic as Thunderball or The Spy Who Loved Me in my view. Just isn't.

Do I think it was essentially all downhill for 007 since 1969? Well, yes, I do. In fact, I believe it was all downhill after DR. NO - I feel that the first Bond film may well be the very best and that no other 007 flick really surpasses it.

I take the opposite view. I don't believe there has been a downhill for the Bond series. Bumps and bruises of course, but not a downhill drop. Dr. No is indeed a very strong Bond film, I thoroughly enjoy watching it. One of the bests? Yes it is.

But do I think they should have shut down the series for good after OHMSS? No. Do I think that there haven't been any decent Bond films since then? Again, no.

I again take the other view. I think the decent Bond films have been many in number after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and I'm not speaking of favorites, but of decent, strong Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, GoldenEye, and Tomorrow Never Dies are just some of those examples, and there are more.

Up to and including OHMSS, though, the series really didn't put a foot wrong. All the films were excellent.

If judging by that logic, I think so. You Only Live Twice, while still a very good Bond film, is not excellent when compared with From Russia With Love or Thunderball.

[Loomis]

I think the decent Bond films have been many in number after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and I'm not speaking of favorites, but of decent, strong Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, GoldenEye, and Tomorrow Never Dies are just some of those examples, and there are more.

I think none of those films, even my beloved LIVING DAYLIGHTS, is as good as any of the 60s films.

And, yes, I think there's been a big "downhill drop" since the 60s came to an end, even though there have been several films to enjoy since then (my 007 personal favourites: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENCE TO KILL, GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY).

[Qwerty]

I think the decent Bond films have been many in number after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and I'm not speaking of favorites, but of decent, strong Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, GoldenEye, and Tomorrow Never Dies are just some of those examples, and there are more.

I think none of those films, even my beloved LIVING DAYLIGHTS, is as good as any of the 60s films.

And, yes, I think there's been a big "downhill drop" since the 60s came to an end, even though there have been several films to enjoy since then (my 007 personal favourites: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENCE TO KILL, GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY).

I think some of those films are better films than some of the 1960's Bond films. I'd say The Living Daylights is a stronger and better Bond film than You Only Live Twice. The Spy Who Loved Me is better than Goldfinger. Yes, Goldfinger is a great Bond film, classic all the way, if not being a bit overrated, but when you judge on the merits of being a good Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me beats it.

[Loomis]

The Spy Who Loved Me is better than Goldfinger.

Seriously?

No, no, no, no, no.

[Harmsway]

I think the decent Bond films have been many in number after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and I'm not speaking of favorites, but of decent, strong Bond films. The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, GoldenEye, and Tomorrow Never Dies are just some of those examples, and there are more.

I think none of those films, even my beloved LIVING DAYLIGHTS, is as good as any of the 60s films.

And, yes, I think there's been a big "downhill drop" since the 60s came to an end, even though there have been several films to enjoy since then (my 007 personal favourites: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MOONRAKER, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENCE TO KILL, GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY).

I think some of those films are better films than some of the 1960's Bond films. I'd say The Living Daylights is a stronger and better Bond film than You Only Live Twice. The Spy Who Loved Me is better than Goldfinger. Yes, Goldfinger is a great Bond film, classic all the way, if not being a bit overrated, but when you judge on the merits of being a good Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me beats it.

Ooh I'd rather watch Goldfinger any day. The villain is better (Goldfinger takes down Stromberg any day), the plot is better (the Fort Knox idea is so much better than the let's-blow-up-the-world-and-live-under-the-sea junk), Goldfinger has better characters (Pussy Galore and Odd Job are much better than Agent XXX and Jaws), and it doesn't treat itself with a sense of self-parody.

[Harmsway]

The Spy Who Loved Me is better than Goldfinger.

Seriously?

No, no, no, no, no.

I'm with you on that.

The 60s were Bond. Everything was done better in the sixties movies - characters, plots (because most of the time it was taken from Fleming), dialogue, music, etc.

[Loomis]

the Fort Knox idea is so much better than the let's-blow-up-the-world-and-live-under-the-sea junk

Ya know, when you put it like that, you're right, the Fort Knox idea is better.

Seriously, TSWLM is a thumping good film (although I consider the first half an awful lot stronger and more exciting than the second, since the first half has a lot of espionage and the "travelogue" element, as well as hair-raising moments with Jaws and, of course, that ski jump, while the second half is basically just Bond marooned on the supertanker with a whole lot of sailors), but no way is it the classic that GOLDFINGER is.

GOLDFINGER isn't just a better film than TSWLM, it changed the world!!!!!!!! Seriously: it kicked off Bondmania. Just check out the references in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN to see how GOLDFINGER grabbed the imagination of a generation in a way that TSWLM didn't even come vaguely close to doing.