
What do you blame Roger Moore for?
#31
Posted 06 May 2006 - 04:35 AM
#32
Posted 23 May 2006 - 06:48 PM
#33
Posted 23 May 2006 - 07:12 PM
But in spirit of the thread........bird flu
#34
Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:00 PM
Honestly, he got some crappy material, but he did it with style and panache. A phenomenal Bond, and second only to the untouchable Sir Sean.
#35
Posted 24 May 2006 - 11:08 AM
#36
Posted 24 May 2006 - 12:31 PM
#37
Posted 25 May 2006 - 02:38 PM
#38
Posted 25 May 2006 - 03:24 PM
A. His Bond movies as a whole were huge box office successes.
B. He never, at least publically, uttered one negative word when Cubby suggested to him, after AVTAK, that it was time for a new Bond.
C. He has never looked down upon his being identified with the Bond character, as if it was some albatross.
D. He is a huge fan and supporter of EON and the Bond franchise to this day.
E. He uses his Bond fame unselfishly to help children throughout the world through UNICEF for free...(Uh....OK, he does get paid $1.00 annually, tax-free, for that work).
What do I blame Roger Moore for? I blame him for setting a standard that's difficult for any other past or future Bond actor to attain.
#39
Posted 29 May 2006 - 06:28 PM
The Saint (1997). Roger, why didn't you stop them?
No kidding! I finally had a chance to see it and, wow, what a piece of well not quite crap but, is it me or did this film really blow monkey chunks! I say lets put it up for debate as in who's the better Saint, Sir Roger or Val, but that would be a waste of space here!
I agree, Roger, couldn't you have stopped them?!?
#40
Posted 12 August 2006 - 08:41 PM
The Saint (1997). Roger, why didn't you stop them?
No kidding! I finally had a chance to see it and, wow, what a piece of well not quite crap but, is it me or did this film really blow monkey chunks! I say lets put it up for debate as in who's the better Saint, Sir Roger or Val, but that would be a waste of space here!
I agree, Roger, couldn't you have stopped them?!?
The better Saint?
A bit of a pointlesss question, don't you think?
C'mon, the movie wasn't that bad...
#41
Posted 12 August 2006 - 09:24 PM
#42
Posted 12 August 2006 - 09:27 PM
#43
Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:38 PM

Edited by mharkin, 13 August 2006 - 08:39 PM.
#44
Posted 14 August 2006 - 12:25 AM
But really, he's my favorite who's played the part. Oh no, a whole buncha Connery fans are gonna beat me up in a dark alley now.
#45
Posted 27 August 2006 - 12:04 AM
I firmly believe that if Roger played Bond from the very beginning, people would have compared all other actors to him. Even Connery, if he started after Roger. It is all about people's resentment toward anyone who plays any character after someone else has set the pace and proved to be successful.
I like both, Sean and Roger, equally in the role of Bond, because of trying to be fair. So I can't really say that Roger was the best. They both were the best as far as I'm concerned. But Roger is definitely my personal favourite.

I blame Roger Moore for having been a model prior to his acting.
Actually, so was Sean....and a chorus boy, too, lol.
The Saint (1997). Roger, why didn't you stop them?
Oh year, THAT I agree on 100%

#46
Posted 27 August 2006 - 05:19 AM
Moore played the role as a comedic character, showing none of the machismo and coolness that was established in the early movies. He would have been more in the mold of Matt Helm or Derek Flint, and we know how long those series lasted. He could have never convincing appeared in the first four screen adaptations. He may have been perfect for the slop that foisted on the viewing public in the 70s and 80s, but he was all wrong for the original vision for the series. In the 60s, the attitude was every man wanted to be like James Bond, and every woman wanted to with James Bond. You never heard that point of view with the Roger Moore cartoons. Going to see a Roger Moore crapfest was like putting on an old pair of sneakers. It was comfortable, but you knew you prefered something better. But until something better came along, you'd still do it.

#47
Posted 27 August 2006 - 06:26 PM
If Roger Moore had appeared from the beginning of the series, it would have never achieved its early success, and would have lasted 2-3 movies tops.
Moore played the role as a comedic character, showing none of the machismo and coolness that was established in the early movies. He would have been more in the mold of Matt Helm or Derek Flint, and we know how long those series lasted. He could have never convincing appeared in the first four screen adaptations. He may have been perfect for the slop that foisted on the viewing public in the 70s and 80s, but he was all wrong for the original vision for the series. In the 60s, the attitude was every man wanted to be like James Bond, and every woman wanted to with James Bond. You never heard that point of view with the Roger Moore cartoons. Going to see a Roger Moore crapfest was like putting on an old pair of sneakers. It was comfortable, but you knew you prefered something better. But until something better came along, you'd still do it.
Well, tastes differ. No one knows for sure what would have happened if Roger was the first playing Bond. Very often being the first means everything, no matter what style of acting the actor chooses. Also, decades were different. What went in the 60's wasn't the same as the 70's. Roger Moore was not the script writer. He acted what the writers chose for him to say and do in the scripts. FYEO was far from being comedic or any less macho than any of Connery's Bonds. In fact, Moore played macho characters in many movies and in The Saint. Connery's DAF was the start of more comedy inclusion, and that was before Roger came to the scene. And lets not forget Never Say Never Again. What was THAT?! If Connery hated comedic approach so much, why make NSNA? IMHO, NSNA was filmed that way to be able to compete with Octopussy that came out the same year. More was already successful and popular in the role at that time. That's just a fact, no matter whether you like him or not.
Just my opinion, don't have to agree with it.

#48
Posted 27 August 2006 - 06:35 PM

#49
Posted 29 October 2006 - 07:03 AM
But, dangit, I can't help lovin' the guy!



Edited by 00Twelve, 30 October 2006 - 09:24 PM.
#50
Posted 29 October 2006 - 07:10 AM
That hungry bastard.
Seriously, I really don't like him.
#51
Posted 29 October 2006 - 10:15 AM
for making his last movie look like Carry on spying
Close, but that was The Living Daylights, no, seriously, both have a villian disguised as a milkman infultrate and destroy a top secret establishment. Talbot Rothwell should have sued!

#52
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:02 PM
Being the BEST bond
#53
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:06 PM
#54
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:15 PM
#55
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:25 PM
#56
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:28 PM
#57
Posted 30 October 2006 - 09:59 PM
Still can't blame the guy for anything.
#58
Posted 31 October 2006 - 08:23 AM
being a great humanatarian.
Truly Sir Roger is a great man
#59
Posted 01 November 2006 - 10:47 PM
#60
Posted 17 December 2006 - 01:02 PM

True story