28 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

After always liking Connery that's it! I can't stop the hidden urge underneath that Moore is the best for me now! Even though Connery had the better movies Moore was better if that makes sense especially in TSWLM and Moonraker. He's walking around in the stratosphere from his pure greatness and also since hes not so physically strong watching him defeat the badguys through this shortcoming makes me BELIEVE.

[David_M]

Welcome to the fold!

I absolutely agree that a big part of Connery's seemingly unshakable hold on "best" status is the quality of his films overall, not his performances per se. Yes, he's a great Bond, but he was also surrounded by arguably the best directors, the best scriptwriters, the best designers, the best editor, the best composer, the best special effects artists, the best stunt coordinators, etc. Not to take anything away from the guy, but how could you NOT look good with a team like Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Maibaum, Adam, Hunt, Barry, Stears and Simmons behind you?

In contrast, Roger's films can at times look cheesy, or have badly dated "disco" scores, or creaky plots, and just by nature of coming later they're often derivative of the early entries. And yet Roger himself emerges as my favorite Bond. Go figure.

I "get the joke" of Connery's Bond looking like a truck driver yet spouting aristocratic dialog (like his review of Col Smithers' sherry), but to me Roger's more genuine air of sophistication is preferable. Also Connery not only had the oft-jarring brogue working against him, but sometimes just plain old *mumbled* his lines, which I never dug. Roger has the best voice of the lot of them (though Craig comes close).

I can't go so far as to wish Roger had started in the role from Day One; I'm happy with how things turned out and I'm grateful to have the Connery entries just as they are. But at the end of the day, Roger will always be James Bond for me.

[The sniper was a woman]

Roger has the best voice of the lot of them.

Definitely agree with that ! Roger's voice is...well...THE voice in my head when I read the books.
My problem with his films is the way he defeated the bad guys, the action scenes. Look at the fight against Sandor... He's not convicing enough for my taste.

[Mr_Wint]

Connery is hard to match. But Moore will always be second best for me

[Matt_13]

Roger has the best voice of the lot of them.

Definitely agree with that ! Roger's voice is...well...THE voice in my head when I read the books.
My problem with his films is the way he defeated the bad guys, the action scenes. Look at the fight against Sandor... He's not convicing enough for my taste.

Yeah I find his fights interestingly bad, considering how tough and physical his Simon Templar was during the sixties. I can't imagine that age would have crept up on him THAT quickly.

Roger was an excellent, iconic Bond in the same vein as Connery and Brosnan. Craig is a new breed, with a very different kind of appeal. He's an icon no doubt, but he's also shrouded in legitimacy and an irreplaceable acting force whose character captures the zeitgeist of our times flawlessly.

[Guy Haines]

Just as we wonder how OHMSS would have turned out with Connery as Bond, another of the great "what ifs" is what the series might have been like with Roger Moore as Bond from the outset. I suppose if you watch "The Saint" there may be clues in there. I think if Roger Moore had played Bond in a way similar to the way he had played Templar, he would have been a very good Bond for his times - smoother than Connery, maybe a bit lighter in touch, but still faithful to Fleming's Bond. As he was, on the whole, when he actually took over the role - it was the films he appeared in that strayed from the Fleming way somewhat.

And he would have had the advantages Sean Connery had in the 1960s. Novelty, plus appearing in the screen versions of some of the best of the Fleming novels, plus the team of directors, writers, composers and so on who set the style of the films.

It is worth recalling that Roger Moore was a contender back in 1962, as was Patrick McGoohan (always a favourite actor of mine, but one wonders how he would have played Bond, had he been able to overcome his moral objections to it?). Sean Connery wasn't the sure fire dead cert for the role, but it is the received wisdom now that the film makers were right to cast him. Received wisdom or not, they were right, I think. But Moore would have been equally acceptable at the time. And he would have been spared the one thing that dogged his Bond career - the inevitable comparisons with his main predecessor.

[sharpshooter]

Connery is hard to match. But Moore will always be second best for me

I love the rivalry these two Bonds have amongst the fans.

[jaguar007]

It is worth recalling that Roger Moore was a contender back in 1962, as was Patrick McGoohan (always a favourite actor of mine, but one wonders how he would have played Bond, had he been able to overcome his moral objections to it?). Sean Connery wasn't the sure fire dead cert for the role, but it is the received wisdom now that the film makers were right to cast him. Received wisdom or not, they were right, I think. But Moore would have been equally acceptable at the time. And he would have been spared the one thing that dogged his Bond career - the inevitable comparisons with his main predecessor.

I think that Moore being a contender back in 62 is a bit of folklore, as Moore himself has stated that we was never approached and had never heard of Bond until Dr. No was released.

The Saint is one of my favorite TV shows (especially the early black and white eps) and I love Moore in them, but I'm skeptical that the Bond series would have reached the box office heights it did with Moore in the role, especially in the US. Connery's ruggedness, sardonic wit combined with smooth polish, was new and fresh in the early 60s. Moore would have been more a traditional polished hero similar in vein to David Niven, Cary Grant, Tom Conway etc.

To Quote Terrence Young when asked about what made Dr. No and the Bond movies so popular, his response was "Sean Connery, Sean Connery, Sean Connery"

[Guy Haines]

It is worth recalling that Roger Moore was a contender back in 1962, as was Patrick McGoohan (always a favourite actor of mine, but one wonders how he would have played Bond, had he been able to overcome his moral objections to it?). Sean Connery wasn't the sure fire dead cert for the role, but it is the received wisdom now that the film makers were right to cast him. Received wisdom or not, they were right, I think. But Moore would have been equally acceptable at the time. And he would have been spared the one thing that dogged his Bond career - the inevitable comparisons with his main predecessor.

I think that Moore being a contender back in 62 is a bit of folklore, as Moore himself has stated that we was never approached and had never heard of Bond until Dr. No was released.

The Saint is one of my favorite TV shows (especially the early black and white eps) and I love Moore in them, but I'm skeptical that the Bond series would have reached the box office heights it did with Moore in the role, especially in the US. Connery's ruggedness, sardonic wit combined with smooth polish, was new and fresh in the early 60s. Moore would have been more a traditional polished hero similar in vein to David Niven, Cary Grant, Tom Conway etc.

To Quote Terrence Young when asked about what made Dr. No and the Bond movies so popular, his response was "Sean Connery, Sean Connery, Sean Connery"

I'd always understood that Roger Moore was on the shortlist, but if that was not so then of course I stand corrected. I think, though, that Patrick McGoohan was certainly considered but rejected the role for moral reasons. As to whether Moore as Bond from 1962 would have been as successful as Connery as Bond, we will never know, but I think he would have attracted a considerable audience anyway.

[The sniper was a woman]

Moore would have been more a traditional polished hero similar in vein to (...) Cary Grant etc.

In "Notorious", I love Cary ! He seems more dangerous in this film than Moore in TSWLM for example. In TMWTGG (IMO) I'm agree there's something of T.R. Devlin in him.

[David_M]

I have to agree, even though Roger's my favorite, that the series likely never would have taken off in such a major way without Connery aboard.

I think Americans in particular had a view of Englishmen that ranged from Cary Grant and Rex Harrison at one extreme to Terry Thomas and Nigel Bruce at the other; at best, they were suave and well-read; at worst befuddled, tweedy ponces sputtering "Eh, wot?" and dropping their monocles into their champagne glasses. Connery turned that stereotype on its ear (yes he was a Scot, but he played an Englishman) and it was that jolt to people's preconceptions that made the early films work. Who knew an Englishman could be macho, let alone ruthless?

Together with the Beatles, Connery's Bond made people re-evaluate all things English, and I don't think Roger could have done that. A lot of his awesomeness comes from being a throwback to traditional English heroes, but I don't think that's what was needed in 1962, though we were ready for it when he did arrive.

Also...as I've mentioned here before...Connery's looks are "ethnic" without being definitively one ethnicity or the other. With his deep tan and dark hair he could have passed for Italian, Spanish, even Arabic (and later played all those!), which probably made it a lot easier to sell Bond in those parts of the world, once properly dubbed.

[General G.]

Sorry, but I rank the Bond actors thusly...

(#1) Connery / Craig / Dalton (tie)
(#2) Brosnan
(#3) Moore
(#4) Lazenby

Edited by General G., 19 November 2010 - 03:23 PM.

[jaguar007]

Moore would have been more a traditional polished hero similar in vein to (...) Cary Grant etc.

In "Notorious", I love Cary ! He seems more dangerous in this film than Moore in TSWLM for example. In TMWTGG (IMO) I'm agree there's something of T.R. Devlin in him.

Notorious is one of my all time favorite films, I'm a big Cary Grant fan. My point is that Connery (as David M pointed out) was a new, different kind of hero, and that is what clicked with the audience.

[Messervy]

to me Roger's more genuine air of sophistication is preferable.

That's very much the way I feel, too.
Without trying to compare the actual performing talent of the various actors (which can be fun, but which clearly leads nowhere since we all have our preferences based on sheer individual taste), I find Roger's touch to be precisely that of a genuine sophistication, as you put it. The perfect blend of cool, detached, seductive, yet highly leathal if needs be.
That, to me, qualifies as the proper characterization.

[Skudor]

This thread is a heresy and all those in agreement should be shot.





Moore will always have a place as one of my favourite Bonds. But no one can replace Connery in his first five.

[The sniper was a woman]

I find Roger's touch to be precisely that of a genuine sophistication, as you put it. The perfect blend of cool, detached, seductive, yet highly leathal if needs be.

Highly leathal ? Roger's Bond ?...In FYEO he's dangerous, yes. Leathal I never saw him as "leathal". Connery and Craig indeed.

[elizabeth]

Roger used to be my favorite, and don't get me wrong, I still think he's terrific and absolutely wonderful, but Sean will always be the best Bond for me.

[The Shark]

I find Roger's touch to be precisely that of a genuine sophistication, as you put it. The perfect blend of cool, detached, seductive, yet highly leathal if needs be.

Highly leathal ? Roger's Bond ?...In FYEO he's dangerous, yes. Leathal I never saw him as "leathal". Connery and Craig indeed.

Roger Moore was never "highly leathal".

However, he was lethal.

[john.steed]

Connery has been and continues to be my favorite Bond. However, I also consider Moore to also be a great Bond. The difference between I judge Connery and Moore is far smaller than the difference between Moore and any other of the Bond actors.

[jaguar007]

I find Roger's touch to be precisely that of a genuine sophistication, as you put it. The perfect blend of cool, detached, seductive, yet highly leathal if needs be.

Highly leathal ? Roger's Bond ?...In FYEO he's dangerous, yes. Leathal I never saw him as "leathal". Connery and Craig indeed.

Roger Moore was never "highly leathal".

However, he was lethal.

So he was lethal, but never high. Got it.

[Colossus]

Welcome to the fold!

Why thank you!

I absolutely agree that a big part of Connery's seemingly unshakable hold on "best" status is the quality of his films overall, not his performances per se. Yes, he's a great Bond, but he was also surrounded by arguably the best directors, the best scriptwriters, the best designers, the best editor, the best composer, the best special effects artists, the best stunt coordinators, etc. Not to take anything away from the guy, but how could you NOT look good with a team like Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Maibaum, Adam, Hunt, Barry, Stears and Simmons behind you?

In contrast, Roger's films can at times look cheesy, or have badly dated "disco" scores, or creaky plots, and just by nature of coming later they're often derivative of the early entries. And yet Roger himself emerges as my favorite Bond. Go figure.

I "get the joke" of Connery's Bond looking like a truck driver yet spouting aristocratic dialog (like his review of Col Smithers' sherry), but to me Roger's more genuine air of sophistication is preferable. Also Connery not only had the oft-jarring brogue working against him, but sometimes just plain old *mumbled* his lines, which I never dug. Roger has the best voice of the lot of them (though Craig comes close).

I can't go so far as to wish Roger had started in the role from Day One; I'm happy with how things turned out and I'm grateful to have the Connery entries just as they are. But at the end of the day, Roger will always be James Bond for me.

Yep. Connery tried really good to pull off the sophisticate but you just can't beat the genuine thing in a person's bones.

[Colossus]

Roger has the best voice of the lot of them.

Definitely agree with that ! Roger's voice is...well...THE voice in my head when I read the books.
My problem with his films is the way he defeated the bad guys, the action scenes. Look at the fight against Sandor... He's not convicing enough for my taste.

Are you crazy, that's one of the best fights of the series! His physique is closer to the viewing masses that watch his movies than the other muscleheads so it rings closer to people that he could still win.

[Lachesis]

I like Roger Moore he's got oodles of charisma and is underrated as an actor (North Sea Hijack and Haunted Man ftw), but that said his portrayal of Bond is not my favourite. I'm not entirely sure why it worked out the way it did becasue watching older TV series tends to illustrate he could offer a different bias had he chosen or been asked to. Ultimately I wish he had brought more of his 'Simon Templer' to the role rather than 'Brett Sinclair', they aren't poles apart but there is enough of a difference imo to have changed the complexion of some scenes he had to play and there was an important edgyness the series lost once it entered the 70's that may otherwise might have been rekindled.

[Messervy]

I find Roger's touch to be precisely that of a genuine sophistication, as you put it. The perfect blend of cool, detached, seductive, yet highly leathal if needs be.

Highly leathal ? Roger's Bond ?...In FYEO he's dangerous, yes. Leathal I never saw him as "leathal". Connery and Craig indeed.

Well, parts of LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and OP show he can switch from eyebrow-raising wooing to shooting coldness in a instant. That makes him highly leathal indeed. Even more so since you don't necessarily anticipate it from the start (compared to Craig, for instance, whom you immediately identify as a potential killer).
Leathal is in the way you sneak your way around, in the way you seduce and strike. Roger is Highly leathal, yes.

[Guy Haines]

I like Roger Moore he's got oodles of charisma and is underrated as an actor (North Sea Hijack and Haunted Man ftw), but that said his portrayal of Bond is not my favourite. I'm not entirely sure why it worked out the way it did becasue watching older TV series tends to illustrate he could offer a different bias had he chosen or been asked to. Ultimately I wish he had brought more of his 'Simon Templer' to the role rather than 'Brett Sinclair', they aren't poles apart but there is enough of a difference imo to have changed the complexion of some scenes he had to play and there was an important edgyness the series lost once it entered the 70's that may otherwise might have been rekindled.

I agree. A better actor than even he thought he was. You could have mentioned the "Congo mercenary" thriller "The Wild Geese" in which he played a tough soldier for hire. A mix of that characterisation and the Simon Templar of the sixties would have worked well. Either that or playing Roger Moore's strengths of suavity and humour against an otherwise straight forward action adventure.

[Achille Aubergine]

After always liking Connery that's it! I can't stop the hidden urge underneath that Moore is the best for me now! Even though Connery had the better movies Moore was better if that makes sense especially in TSWLM and Moonraker. He's walking around in the stratosphere from his pure greatness and also since hes not so physically strong watching him defeat the badguys through this shortcoming makes me BELIEVE.

I'm one of the biggest Roger Moore's fan ! He was the ultimate James Bond for people of my age ! Sophisticated and charming, his best weapon was his charisma !

[The Shark]

For me his biggest facet as Bond was not the charm, wit, or self-deprecation - but the humanity he brought to the part.

[Colossus]

Wow you nailed it Shark.

[Messervy]

Quite right.
Most other actors (with the exception of Laz', I would say), great as they might be, lack that touch of genuine humanity. Their Bond is often too remote and too far off.
There's a special relationship Moore managed with the audience, I'd say.