It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Agreed. While his tenure may not hit the highs with quite the same frequency as the early connery's, they're pretty damn consistent and every one of them is hugely entertaining to me. If I want Fleming I'll pick up a novel. [/quote]
Exactly. There are so many things I would change about the Connery films, Dalton, and Pierce to make them better. Moores movies I wouldn't change anything. [/quote]
Yes, they were consistent, all right, consistently bad. It's the worst reviewed stretch of Bond films, and it took the series three decades to recover. He turned Bond into a comedy, a parody.
There's things I'd change about the COnnery films. What's your point? Moore's films are still mediocre films AT BEST.[/quote]
My point how about the fact they ******* up on a great 2 film storyline line when they decided to make YOLT before OHMSS and completely ******* up that story. Thats what I would change about the Connery films. Leave the first 4 the same and switch OHMSS and YOLT and have a true adaptation of the novel YOLT. Maybe if they had done the films that way Connery wouldn't have left after his 5th movie.
Edited for unacceptable language. Please try and comply by the forum's terms and conditions.
Thats the big question and I'm sure Roger has given his reason as to why he did AVTAK. Other than money maybe Roger wanted to do 1 more just so people wouldn't think he just came back for Octopussy just to beat Connery.
There's still that great scene with Locque. But then again, no-one has ever had such an awesome moment as Connery in DN.
Once again, @doubleohdad, you seem to blame this on Roger Moore. He didn't write the script for his films and neither did Connery. Your point is invalid.
In your opinion. I and many other millions would respectfully disagree.
The scene with the assassin in FYEO is Rog's finest moment in his best Bond film.
And like I explained before, the star does have approval of the script, though I actually lump Guy Hamilton and for all this as well since his desire to make these films camp really contributed to the erosion of the franchise. There's a reason that EON considered Adam West.
Good god.
There's a reason those films are rated so poorly with the critics, RC.
Let's not forget that these films were massive, and making serious dollars. There was no way the studios wanted to upset the apple cart.
The 'critics' also rated what is probably the film with the sloppiest and laziest plot in the franchise as a masterpiece. Although by Doubleohdad logic we can just blame Craig for approving the script anyway ;)
Critics are suckers for a downbeat or depressing ending, everyone knows that. It has been a not insignificant part of the Craig films critical success (although they've done a lot other right). How the hell else would titanic be lauded as a masterpiece?
Who cares about critics? It's a slippery slope discussing the merits of critics on a fan site. For that you'd have to go to a general film forum. It's the audience that decides whether a film is ultimately worth their time.
Roger kept the audiences coming for twelve years straight, His films rank at the yearly worldwide Box Office as follows, 4th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th. Not bad going in my eyes. Conners smashed it during his run, but every Bond since Moore has had at least one film outside the top 5 for their respective year and obviously Rog is the only Bond other than Conners to have a number one film worldwide. No one denies his time was up, but he always delivered.
He also holds the record for the most watched film broadcast on British television - LALD with 23.5 million viewers, with TSWLM in third with 22.9 million. Spielberg's Jaws takes the number two. I think it's fairly evident that there were a good portion of the British public who very much indulged in what Rog brought to the table. Whether you think it's bad is up to you, but I'd argue that figures like that suggest the British public, at least, feel quite differently.
Surely the main reason that Moore wasn't replaced after FYEO was because of the Battle of the Bonds of 1983. With EON under pressure and Connery and McClory looming on the horizon, they needed Moore. Even though money played a major part, it should be pointed out that Roger Moore is usually the first to report for duty when the Bond World needs him, even today. It is only fitting that Octopussy beat its rival at the box-office that year. It is by far the better film, and I'd always back Cubby's Bond team against any interloper.
Sir Roger Moore was loved by the Bond crew, and seemed to get on well with all of them, from the highest echelons to the lowest tea-carrier. Lazenby proved that there could be life after Connery; Moore proved that Bond could thrive after Connery.
We all have different tastes, and different favourites, but I for one think that we owe quite a debt to Roger Moore. You don't play Bond 7 times if you are a dud. For a whole generation, Moore was Bond. To many, he still is.
He would chuckle at some of the criticism lobbed his way so consistently on here this week. Chuckle because he would be far more savage about his acting than his detractors have been!
1. I would prefer a darker more down to earth Moonraker
2. I wish octopussy was his last film
That's very true, I criticise him as Bond from time to time too but I do admit that, of all the Bond's, he seems to be the only actor to publicly embrace the role. The others all want to distance themselves from it.
Moore's films were light hearted, yes, but that suited the audiences of the day. Had Cubby gone for hard hitting, film noir or tried to reproduce FRWL over and over, the series would have died a death. It had to evolve and change in order to survive. We can look back and pick the errors out, but only Cubby and Harry, and Barbara B now have had to make the big decisions to keep the franchise alive. So Moore carried on and the films carried on making money. And because of that Dalton and Brosnan and now Craig got their chances as well.
Roger Moore was the one actor who put his own stamp on a role and he was wanted by the general audience until he decided that it was enough with what I consider a great movie I always liked AVTAK. A Roger Moore 007 movie was a big happening in those years, he was with Connery easily the most popular 007 so far.
For the generations that grew up to be a 007 fan after Sir Moore it is perhaps difficult to realize that without him there would not have been any franchise with their favorite secret agent. Rogers version made it possible that we today enjoy a 24th outing when the franchise was next to over with DAF.
lol, critics have no other objective other than to gage a film's merits and faults.
You should praise Craig for two very good scripts and one merely good one. I'd rather watch a flawed QoS than any of the just super-silly Moore films.
Jaws drops a brick on his foot like Daffy Duck.
How is that like Bond at all?
I don't like casting EON as this bastion of perfection. If where up to EON, John Gavin would have been an American Bond. They did sign him. And they considered Adam West, the King of Camp.
Lazenby deserved his fate, he was an idiot, but going the soft, kind Bond ruined the franchise slowly but steadily.
Watch Kananga's death in LALD and tell me that's cool.
Ugh.
And @doubleohdad, you need to accept the fact that Roger Moore kept the franchise alive. Without him the franchise would have died, and Dalton, Brosnan and Craig would never have played Bond.
I don't think that critics are perfect, and I use them as one measure of whether I want to see a picture or not. I thought Taken was cool, and I distinctly remember Siskel and Ebert not liking ALiens, a film I greatly admire, but the 70's films are what they are in terms of lack of quality and deserve their ranking.
Sir, simply ignore my posts if you don't want to debunk or debate them.
Perfectly fine, everyone's being polite and exchanging ideas.
You like Moore Camp and giggle fest, I like a good, tough Bond movie, everyone's different.
I would say it's no more or less cool than DN's rather cartoonish death, GF being sucked out of a jet, Celli's hammy acting for Largo's death to name but a few.
I appreciate your politeness, Nic Nac :)