36 replies to this topic

[Walecs]

Moore is an extremely underrated actor.

From who? Many consider him the best Bond actor (not me of course).

[Dustin]

Moore is an extremely underrated actor.

From who? Many consider him the best Bond actor (not me of course).

Firstly by himself. He used to say he had only two facial expressions and one of them was when Jaws hit his kidney stones. With that kind of understatement audiences quickly had him in the 'comic' pigeon hole. True, many see him as their best Bond. But few really appreciate his acting. Which deserves a more justified reassessment.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think he became Bond exactly at the right time - for the franchise and for himself.

Starting it at the time of DR.NO, IMO, he would have been too young and clean cut. Just as Dalton would have been if he had taken over after Lazenby.

[L4YRCAKE]

I just finished reading the article about the genesis of Bond in the newest Vanity Fair, in it they mention that Roger Moore was wanted for the role before they settled on Connery and that the producers considered Moore the safer choice. I think that pretty much sums it up: he would have been a great first Bond but probably would have lacked the menacing panther-like quality that Connery brought to the role.

One moment that I think defined what Connery brought to the role: I don't think any other actor would have been able to get away with making fun of the Beatles the way Connery did in Goldfinger. I think any other actor would have tried to fall in line with their hip factor in order to be seen as current. Connery must have sensed on some level that while everybody else wanted to be the Beatles, the Beatles wanted to be James Bond. I bet the Beatles seriously relished Bond's jab at them onscreen.

[bey-columbo]

Probably Roger Moore would have been a more tough Bond If he had begun in Dr No.

Each decade had his own mentality, and this is visible in the saga.

60s >>> Quite tought and manly Bond.

70s >>> Humor and kitsh, this begin in DAF, humor did not need Roger to invade the saga.

80s >>> Less humor and return of a tough idea of the character.

90s >>> High tech, elegance, a little surhuman character...

XXIth >>> Tough and tormented character, in a tough and tormented world.

Edited by bey-columbo, 15 October 2012 - 11:58 PM.

[Iceskater101]

then all the movies would of been ruined.

That is a little harsh but Roger was one of my least favorite bonds.

I think he became Bond exactly at the right time - for the franchise and for himself.

Starting it at the time of DR.NO, IMO, he would have been too young and clean cut. Just as Dalton would have been if he had taken over after Lazenby.

I agree with this statement as well. He was good for the Bond role at the right time.

[L4YRCAKE]

then all the movies would of been ruined.

That is a little harsh but Roger was one of my least favorite bonds.

I think he became Bond exactly at the right time - for the franchise and for himself.

Starting it at the time of DR.NO, IMO, he would have been too young and clean cut. Just as Dalton would have been if he had taken over after Lazenby.

I agree with this statement as well. He was good for the Bond role at the right time.

Whatever else, Moore was definitely the right Bond at the right time. Ian Fleming couldn't stand the choice of Sean Connery initially, he wanted a David Niven/Roger Moore type, aloof and suave. In fact, they tailored Connery's suits initially to smooth over and hide Connery's physique.

Connery brought an unexpected element that the producers saw in him, a toughness to the character that hadn't quite been anticipated by the writer, yet was needed considering
Bond's vocation, and Connery's take quickly grew on Fleming ultimately being reflected in his last batch of novels.

But Connery seemed to get tired of the role quickly, too. I think it was a combination of taking the role too seriously and not seriously enough. And unlike Roger Moore, Connery didn't exactly age well for playing Bond, he seems tired and bored in DaF and even moreso in NSNA.

In a perfect world, Connery would have followed up Thunderball with OHMSS, and then YOLT, and exited the series gracefully, handing the reigns to Moore for DaF, LALD, et al. OHMSS is one of, if not my favorite Bond, but I think it was also a Bond that was existed as a lament to Connery just not wanting to be there anymore, and overstaying his welcome, that being the case. In my other perfect world, Lazenby was another perfect 60's Bond and should have done the Blofeld trilogy starting with Thunderball and then exited. Either way, I think Moore should have been Bond in Diamonds Are Forever and done it closer to the books.

Roger Moore was the epitome of the 70's in his Bond films. And his Bonds were the most fun to watch as a kid. He had two flaws: his physicality was tongue in cheek and camp, therefore unbelievable, which is a deal breaker when your job is being an assassin. And he was devoid of any working class traits, he was an upper class Bond. Mr. Craig bringing back a working class element to Bond is long, long overdue and makes his toughness more believable. But I believe that Moore was the classiest, most stylish Bond, and his love scenes with the women were the most convincing. Nobody Does It Better was about Moore's Bond, and nobody else's. And why exert yourself when you've got the best cars and gadgets of the series?