23 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

Does anyone here believe Moore is seriously as great a Bond as Connery is? Even if his movies weren't exactly the same quality as Connery's but just as James Bond himself, the more i rewatch the movies the more i believe this, sure underneath all of the big tie and bell bottoms there is a person who has such a strong sense of singularity, not trying to be like the books nor another Bond actor just his own self. I used to think his older age was hokey and that he wasn't believable but i think with that age he gained a sort of zen like wisdom that comes with it, he didn't seem to be really mired in ego or testosterone which is such a big factor with the other Bonds, i dunno he has an anchored stability to him which is unique and just feels right.

[Messervy]

Does anyone here believe Moore is seriously as great a Bond as Connery is? Even if his movies weren't exactly the same quality as Connery's but just as James Bond himself, the more i rewatch the movies the more i believe this, sure underneath all of the big tie and bell bottoms there is a person who has such a strong sense of singularity, not trying to be like the books nor another Bond actor just his own self. I used to think his older age was hokey and that he wasn't believable but i think with that age he gained a sort of zen like wisdom that comes with it, he didn't seem to be really mired in ego or testosterone which is such a big factor with the other Bonds, i dunno he has an anchored stability to him which is unique and just feels right.

I do think that Moore is at least as great as Connery. Actually, I consider him to be a trifle better.

Connery is very good, but to me he has not that many strings to his bow. He can play cruel-Bond as good as charming-Bond, but he doesn't really manages to play courtly-Bond or wooing-Bond. Those 2 angles of the character have been brought by Moore. Moore does manage a very subtle balance between hard-edged spy (some scenes in LALD, TSWLM or OP show he's not messing around) and enjoyable fictional character. Moore gave Bond the ability to be both serious and light, depending on the plot and/or on the needs in one given scene.

I think Moore introduced a very welcome and much needed element of "I'm not taking myself too seriously". There's just the right amount of detachment in his acting. You can see he's actually having fun, and we are therefore enjoying ourselves with him. It's different with, say, Brosnan, whom I consider is taking himself way too seriously to convey an enjoyable atmosphere to his films.

On the whole, I'd say Moore is a slightly better Bond than Connery, because his range of Bonds is wider.

[Lachesis]

Does anyone here believe Moore is seriously as great a Bond as Connery is? Even if his movies weren't exactly the same quality as Connery's but just as James Bond himself, the more i rewatch the movies the more i believe this, sure underneath all of the big tie and bell bottoms there is a person who has such a strong sense of singularity, not trying to be like the books nor another Bond actor just his own self. I used to think his older age was hokey and that he wasn't believable but i think with that age he gained a sort of zen like wisdom that comes with it, he didn't seem to be really mired in ego or testosterone which is such a big factor with the other Bonds, i dunno he has an anchored stability to him which is unique and just feels right.

I think all the Bond actors have brought something unique to the role and all have emphasised certain aspects with others donwplayed or neglected - in the end its about which balance suits you.... Connery had it all imo, but I totally respect those that prefer a different mix and I would never indulge the conciet of claiming one as the true 'great'....... splendid fellows...all of him as the Brigadier might say!

Edited by Lachesis, 03 August 2010 - 12:36 PM.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Does anyone here believe Moore is seriously as great a Bond as Connery is? Even if his movies weren't exactly the same quality as Connery's but just as James Bond himself, the more i rewatch the movies the more i believe this, sure underneath all of the big tie and bell bottoms there is a person who has such a strong sense of singularity, not trying to be like the books nor another Bond actor just his own self. I used to think his older age was hokey and that he wasn't believable but i think with that age he gained a sort of zen like wisdom that comes with it, he didn't seem to be really mired in ego or testosterone which is such a big factor with the other Bonds, i dunno he has an anchored stability to him which is unique and just feels right.

I think all the Bond actors have brought something unique to the role and all have emphasised certain aspects with others donwplayed or neglectedto the detriment of others in the end its about which balance suits you.... Connery had it all imo, but I totally respect those that prefer a different mix and I would never indulge the conciet of climing one as the true 'great'....... splendid fellows...all of him as the Brigadier might say!

I agree that all the Bond actors are 'great' in their own right.

If you're comparing Connery and Moore in terms of their coldness in the role, you'd have to say Connery was greater than Moore. If you're comparing the fun they generally brought to the role, you'd probably have to say Moore was greater than Connery. But both of them were great for what they did in their movies. I adore Connery's coldness in Dr. No and From Russia With Love particularly, but Roger Moore is a really fun Bond to watch, and Live And Let Die is one of the best Bond movies made in my opinion.

They're both great. They're ALL great! Yes, even Lazenby!

[David_M]

Actually, I'm sometimes surprised at how textured Connery's Bond is. Yes, he's the tough one, but he's also the only Bond to sing (twice!) and dance (in two films if you include NSNA) and if he's never exactly "romantic" with the assorted Bond girls, he does convey a sweet flirtatiousness with Moneypenny throughout.

That said, Roger has always been "my Bond" and I absolutely agree he's right up there at the very top with Connery. Sean gets all the love for being first, and helping define Bond, but Roger RE-defined him, which is something no other actor has done. Fans will always disagree on whether this is a good thing, especially as Roger's interpretation is often very much at odds with the source material, but it's an achievement nonetheless.

If you define "great" in terms of audience-drawing power and the ability to shape the public's perception of the character, yes Roger was definitely equal to Connery. Everything after that is subjective, and thus impossible to settle.

[jaguar007]

It is subjective. How one views Moore or Connery being the greatest, all comes down to personal preference. However as far as the base public is concerned, Connery will always be the greatest. Why, he was the first. That does not mean that he is necessarily the best, but he introduced Bond to the cinema. The most iconic images from the series are from the Connery films (introduction in Dr. No, Honey rising from the water, girl painted gold, Aston Martin with ejector seat, Odd Job's hat, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die"), only the ski jump and the Lotus from the TSWLM can compete. Also while the Moore movies were very popular and successful, they never approached the popularity or box office ticket sales of Goldfinger or Thunderball.

That said David M does make a good point as far as Moore so far being the only actor to really re-define Bond. Only time will tell if Craig (or another future actor) will be able to get a few more Bond films under his belt and turn the public's image of Bond as a hard hitting tough guy.

[David_M]

Of course Connery's greatly aided by being first; he basically got to define who and what James Bond even *is" to the world at large. This, combined with his undeniable screen presence and the aid of arguably the most talented crews in the series has pretty much assured his "supremacy" for all time. To a certain degree, each actor since has been measured not by how faithful he is to Fleming's Bond (most people haven't even read the books) but how close he comes to being a surrogate Connery.

Moore's chief offense in the eyes of most folks back in the day was that he was not, could not be and (horrors!) apparently didn't even want to be Sean Connery. What praise the general public has bestowed on Dalton, Brosnan and Craig has always to one degree or other come through that filter of being "closer to Connery." Poor old Lazenby caught flak from both sides, slammed on the one hand for doing "a mere Connery impersonation" and on the other for not being "Connery" enough.

If one plays this game, and holds Connery up as the be-all and end-all, then Roger will always come out near the bottom of the list, since he's the least like Sean. But the flip side of that is that he's the only one to really make the character his own during his tenure; whatever praise he earned (and sometimes it wasn't much), at least it didn't boil down to, "Attaboy, put a little more Connery into it!"

I think it could be argued (and has been!) that none of the actors so far has fully captured Fleming's James Bond on screen, but ultimately...at least to my mind...only two have stamped their own personalities on the character in a way that's resonated in any huge way and endured over any real length of time. And those two are Connery and Moore. You can certainly argue that Connery left the bigger mark, but together they are in a league of their own.

[Colossus]

Connery did leave a bigger mark but over time the icon factor kind of recedes in importance and what is left is just the iamges on screen, i'm willing to bet most of us weren't introduced to Bond sitting in 1964 watching Goldfinger to be wowed by all of these firsts in the series, most here were probably introduced to it through video/dvd (like me and my 1st theater being Goldeneye) or maybe theaters in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and reading the groupthink of the forums certainly bends your own views on anything sometimes for better sometimes for worse, so basically over time the movies and actors have to stand on their own terms as icon factors lose their importance. Although something that stands up even now is the 1960s era and what a unique atmosphere it had, but even now that doesn't seem to matter anymore since we're currently in some sort of a 60s and 80s retro lovefest but that might pass. To put it generally for me the Connery movies were better but Moore was a better Bond!

[jaguar007]

Well of all the Bonds, Connery and Moore certainly have the most charisma and screen presence. As good as they are, Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan don't hold the screen the way Connery and More do. Craig also has good screen presence, but sometimes his voice mumbles a bit.

[Colossus]

Yes and for Moore specifically, before he became Bond he had nearly 30 freakin years on the screen so when he first appears as Bond and doesn't even appear like he's acting that much, and yet the presence is overwhelming which is something that can only be gotten from so many previous years of experience, that effort beforehand doesn't go to waste but is always built up inside him.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

In short YES Moore was a great a Bond as Connery. As long as people have been heard to say 'I prefer Moore to Connery" which a lot of people did, then I think that makes him great.

It could be argued that its only really been Connery and Moore where people have gone to see the Bond films on the sole basis those respective actors were playing the part. With Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig people were lured into the cinema partly because the films were Bond films, and what I mean by that is the public knew they were going to be entertained and what they were going to get on the screen etc etc.
Of course if people agree with this argument its becomes double edged sword as Moore and Connery are perhaps the only actors with enough films under their respective belts to achieve this status of greatness where people queued first and foremost to see them in the part. It may happen with Craig - time will tell - and perhpas it did with Brosnan. However, even though Brosnan was 'Billion Dollar Bond' I'm not convinced he had the followers Connery and Moore did.

[Guy Haines]

I can imagine Roger Moore shooting Professor Dent in cold blood. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine Sean Connery driving a gondola/hovercraft around Venice, or defusing a nuclear bomb dressed as a clown. Nor can I imagine the Bond of the books doing either of those things. The problem I have is that the film makers had Roger doing them as Bond, and few minded.

I think he made a very good start with LALD and TMWTGG. And there are scenes in the films that followed that showed Moore as Bond pretty well. Unfortunately, from TSWLM onwards, the film makers latched on to one quality Roger Moore has in real life - his sense of humour - and ran with it for all it was worth. At the expense of other qualities that Bond is supposed to have, such as sheer ruthlessness.

Which is a pity, because I've seen Roger Moore in other roles where he has demonstrated exactly those qualities not always present in his portrayal of Bond. For example in "The Wild Geese", when he forces two drug dealers at gun point to consume cocaine laced with strychnine (which is why I can imagine him in that infamous scene from Dr No).

Bond isn't supposed to be a genial gentleman adventurer, even though he displays those characteristics at times. He is a gentleman special agent, and when required a state sponsored murderer. Sean Connery combined those elements. That is why, for me, he is the better Bond of the two.

[Turn]

Connery did leave a bigger mark but over time the icon factor kind of recedes in importance and what is left is just the iamges on screen, i'm willing to bet most of us weren't introduced to Bond sitting in 1964 watching Goldfinger to be wowed by all of these firsts in the series, most here were probably introduced to it through video/dvd (like me and my 1st theater being Goldeneye) or maybe theaters in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and reading the groupthink of the forums certainly bends your own views on anything sometimes for better sometimes for worse, so basically over time the movies and actors have to stand on their own terms as icon factors lose their importance. Although something that stands up even now is the 1960s era and what a unique atmosphere it had, but even now that doesn't seem to matter anymore since we're currently in some sort of a 60s and 80s retro lovefest but that might pass. To put it generally for me the Connery movies were better but Moore was a better Bond!

Excellent thread and several good points.

I was one of those kids who first saw the Connery films on double features on the big screen; DAF was my first new Bond film in a cinema; and Moore would be considered the Bond I grew up with. It's interesting on a personal note that he played Bond from when I started kindergarten in the fall of 1972 and AVTAK came out a week before I graduated high school.

I still recall whenever catching a Bond film on the ABC Movie of the Week that whichever star it had would be my favorite at the time, so it went back and forth between Connery and Moore. But it was all too true about being a Bond fan during the Moore era was the constant comparisons with Connery, almost always in his favor.

So much of fandom at the time made it seem like Moonraker was pure evil. As I got a little older I started leaning toward Connery more and he's still my favorite Bond. I was ready for Rog to go by '85 and was thrilled with Dalton.

But the nice thing about having 25 years of distance since Moore's last stab at Bond is you can now put it into perpective better and appreciate what he was trying to do on a different level. Since joining CBn, it's been interesting to see the Moore appreciation grow. As a testament to that, I don't know if it's still that way, but for a while the Moore forum here had the most hits or threads or responses or something.

[elizabeth]

Absolutely not. I do love Rog a great deal and he is extremely sexy, but not as sexy as Sean and not as...well, I take that back. Roger is very suave, but he's not the guy I picture when I read the books. That's Sean. Moore is terrific, but Sean is my absolute favorite.

For the record, Moore used to be my favorite until I had the eye-opener that was Goldfinger. Then I was like, "Sorry, Rog!" and left that camp. But I do still love him and give him credit for what he did.

[Matt_13]

He's enjoyable in his own right, as are all the Bonds. He does have magnificent screen presence, but to a degree they all do IMO.

[Colossus]

this forum is definitely my most visited of the individual Bond forums. It's just the most fun here for some reason.


Also i agree witht he posts above about Moore's range in able to do a lot of things, the womanizing, the warmth, the cold-bloodedness etc. Truly amazing how varied his tenure is. The lack of the ego factor is another uniqueness that Moore has, and why i love Connery in YOLT, a guy who's been through it all of before and he doesn't even need to act like his younger self attaining that zen-state of a more older wizened Bond who's beyond having to have his ego, it's like a bridge to Moore Bond. Someone here once posted (in the Moore=most professional thread) that Moore is actually a continuation of Connery Bond and i like that theory.

[jaguar007]

The lack of the ego factor is another uniqueness that Moore has

Not sure I agree with this. I think Moore Bond's ego is just as big as the others. His Bond tends to be a bit on the cocky side such as in the Backgammon scene in Octopussy.

[Automan]

Sir Rog as greatas Sir Sean?

NO, no way

[sharpshooter]

With their long eras, there is no doubt they are the big two with the general public. Connery nailed the role for all time. Moore came in and made it distinctly his own. Before Moore, Bond was Connery and that was that. A big well done to him. Personally, for the take each went for, they are equally great. Both were born to play the part, and both scream James Bond, no matter how polar opposite they may be.

[David_M]

If, as I personally believe, Sean and Roger are "the two poles" of Bond, then you could say Sean "wins" because his take is the one people seem to prefer. That is to say, the public may enjoy humor, polish and sophistication ala Roger in a Bond, but when push comes to shove what they really want is ruthlessness, physicality and "cool," ala Sean.

Dalton went his own way with a "faithful to Fleming" approach and no one cared. Brosnan made himself an amalgam of Moore and Connery and came off as "the generic Bond"; humorous enough, tough enough, but in the end neither fish nor foul, a compromise. Craig's Bond harks back to Fleming in some ways, but audiences are more interested in the fact that he's ripped, tough as nails and able to break people in two. Again, like you-know-who (hint: not Fleming's Bond).

For years on these boards, we had folks campaigning for the casting of Adrian Paul, an actor whose chief asset is an uncanny resemblance to Connery. I really think if an actor were cast tomorrow who looked and acted like Roger, he'd get a cold reception, but if a mad scientist could produce a biological clone of Sean Connery, people would line up to see it in the tuxedo even if it couldn't walk or talk.

[jaguar007]

I really think if an actor were cast tomorrow who looked and acted like Roger, he'd get a cold reception,

I think you are quite right. Although feature wise they look very different, Moore and Craig's hair color is not really that dissimilar, and we know the crap Craig got for his hair color.

[Colossus]

The lack of the ego factor is another uniqueness that Moore has

Not sure I agree with this. I think Moore Bond's ego is just as big as the others. His Bond tends to be a bit on the cocky side such as in the Backgammon scene in Octopussy.

Oh well I have actually not seen Octopussy for a while but dealing with other villains he always seemed above their pettyness, for exxample when speaking to Scarmanaga on the dinner table he doesn't really do jokey smiles but does a stone face and tells him point blank that he'd like to kill him without any wittyness or confronting Stromberg he has a seriousness where Connery would have a ho hum "i'm too cool for this" thing.

[jaguar007]

he has a seriousness where Connery would have a ho hum "i'm too cool for this" thing.

Did Connery seem "i;m too cool for this thing" when meeting Dr. No? How about the final conflict between Klebb or on the train with Grant? When Bond is bargaining for his life as Goldfinger's laser moves toward his, ummm, you know?

I think both actors started out on a more serious note and their Bonds both became a bit more cocky as time went on (although Moore was also a bit cocky when first meeting Mr. Big in LALD

[Colossus]

Those are serious moments i agree and both played it more serious early on their eras however where Connery got more smug Moore didn't really. I mean in Thunderball Connery is in the stratosphere while Moore in Moonraker is still relatively the same as in The Spy Who Loved Me. But Connery did come back to earth for YOLT and lost it all which is why it's very reminiscent of Moore and is like a nice bridge to Moore.