Moore vs. Brosnan

Getafix

chrisisall wrote:

Getafix wrote:

Roger's great contribution was not just following Connery, but showing that you could play the part completely differently.

By playing him like The Saint??? LOL, I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time taking this seriously. You pat Rog on the back for playing Bond as NOT much like Bond, but you dump on Brosnan for playing Bond a bit like Sean here & a bit like Rog there... in other words, an original that deviates markedly from the pattern is better than a fairly good copy... ? :O
:))

It's not that complicated.

My view is that the definition of the screen Bond is up for grabs to a certain extent - obviously within certain limits. It's up to the actor to define what he wants to do with the role. Roger did that very successfully by stamping his own style on the part. Brosnan was not successful in the part because he never really got to grips with who/what his Bond was.

I never bought the idea that Brosnan was a bit of Sean mixed up with a bit of Rog. If only!

Was Brosnan a 'fairly good copy' of Connery and Moore? Not in my opinion.

So yes, a 'good' original take on the part is much preferable to a lame attempt at aping the greats.

chrisisall

Getafix wrote:

Roger did that very successfully by stamping his own style on the part.

By playing him like The Saint.

See, I actually like Rog, but I'm not gonna pretend he had some precise vision of how he wanted to construct his Bond merely so I can use that to somehow feed my Brozhate habit.
;)

Getafix

Well, may be by playing him like Roger Moore.

Moore is able to vocalise his approach to the part much more coherently than Brosnan ever could. He didn't just play up the humour on a whim - he saw the inherent absurdity in a super spy who is known by his actual name throughout the world. I'm not saying he was doing a Method performance, just that he had a much clearer idea of what he was doing on screen, and why.

People always bang on about Dalton having gone to RADA, as a sign of his acting credentials, but so did Sir Rog. It always gets overlooked for some reason. Not only that, and perhaps more significantly, he was one of the last generation of actors to go through the old Hollywood studio system at MGM, where they helped style and mould actors to take advantage of their strengths in front of the camera. I'm not claiming Rog is a great actor, but his abilities and intelligence (or perhaps just instincts) as a screen actor are often casually dismissed and overlooked. He is a solid leading man, of the old school, with a good understanding of what works on screen and what doesn't, and that quality just shines through.

chrisisall

Getafix wrote:

He is a solid leading man, of the old school, with a good understanding of what works on screen and what doesn't, and that quality just shines through.

Agreed, and that's why I can accept his not-so-Bond Bond. And while I feel his Bond was simply a slightly darker Saint, I feel Brosnan's Bond was simply a darker Remington Steele. I actually believe Sean Tim & Dan are the only ones to put any thought into who this guy Bond really IS. The others were just play acting to different entertaining degrees. Since I happen to like Rog & Pierce, I also like both their Bonds...

Getafix

Sounds like your arguing just for the sake of it then!

chrisisall

Getafix wrote:

Sounds like your arguing just for the sake of it then!

I NEVER do that!
:-?

Almost never.

Rarely.

identigraph

There is plenty of Fleming in Moore's portrayl, certain aspects of the charcter are mentioned too much such as dark and intense, that is not the be all and end all of the character it's just an aspect.

The blunt instrument line has also been overused.

Getafix

identigraph wrote:

There is plenty of Fleming in Moore's portrayl, certain aspects of the charcter are mentioned too much such as dark and intense, that is not the be all and end all of the character it's just an aspect.

The blunt instrument line has also been overused.

I cannot really comment on the books, having only read MR, but I do think Moore's performances are much more nuanced and varied than some people make out. He is excellent at very quick changes in tone - going from the light hearted stuff to moments of high tension. Quite underrated IMHO, not least because he is so ready to mock own persona and abilities.

identigraph

I have always thought that MR the film has cast a bit of a shadow over Rog's tenure, because it's so absurd, it makes people think the whole period was insane, while there was a fair bit of silliness, there was plenty of serious material as well.

chrisisall

identigraph wrote:

I have always thought that MR the film has cast a bit of a shadow over Rog's tenure

Agreed. And I feel DAD has done the same for Brosnan's to a point as well.

BAIN123

I think at his best (TSWLM, FYEO and OP) Moore presents himself as an "old pro" sort of chap. A smooth, confident professional who has seen it all and knows how to use charm to get what he wants. At his worst (MWTGG, MR and AVTAK) he's a smirky, slightly letchy man who thinks he's gods gift and purely sending himself up.

chrisisall

@BAIN123 that's well put.

identigraph

chrisisall wrote:

identigraph wrote:

I have always thought that MR the film has cast a bit of a shadow over Rog's tenure

Agreed. And I feel DAD has done the same for Brosnan's to a point as well.

Yea, agree with this 100%.

I do like the first two Brosnans. TWINE not sure about really, DAD it's all been said already.

SaintMark

Roger Moore played the Saint as the last version of Leslie Charteris' the Saint, the mostly US based post WWII version.

The early Saint was sometimes more as James Bond has become a lethal man who enjoyed a lot of chaos created by himself in order to solve the situation in which he wants to come on top. The Saint in this era is quite a gentleman but remorseless when it came to the baddies. In my book the best Saint version.

As a Saint fan I feel that the Saint comparrison is rather off, it is as smart as saying that he played 007 like Ivanhoe or Brett Sinclair. Roger Moore did play all those parts.

If anything the 007 franchise did borrow quite a lot from the Saint franchise to make their main character more interesting. And they did a good job.

4EverBonded

A tip of Roger's halo to you, Sir SaintMark. ;)
I rather agree.

Thunderfinger

WOII= Welt Orlog II, for those who wonder. (WW2)

SaintMark

Thunderfinger wrote:

WOII= Welt Orlog II, for those who wonder. (WW2)

Actually it is Wereld Oorlog 2. O:-)

Thunderfinger

Thanks, my Dutch is piss poor sadly.

4EverBonded

And I was just guessing it was a typo and was supposed to WW2.
At least I guessed the answer right!

SaintMark

Thunderfinger wrote:

Thanks, my Dutch is piss poor sadly.

I did correct my mistake into WWII, it is the Dutch side of me.

Thunderfinger

Hahaha! Very good, @SaintMark.

Getafix

Random fact (from Wikipedia). Potential for some Bond-Dutch colleaboration in an up-coming Bond movie? 'Bond of Friendship' would have made a great title for a (Brosnan) movie.

The Royal Marines and Netherlands Marine Corps are allied through a 'Bond of friendship'.

Since 1973, units of the Netherlands Marine Corps have formed part of the British 3 Commando Brigade during exercises and real conflict situations. Together, these form the UK/NL Landing Force. Either the First or the Second Marine Battalion can be assigned as the Dutch contribution to this force.

The cooperation between the Korps Mariniers and the Royal Marines has led to extensive integration in the areas of operations, logistics and materials. Within NATO this is seen as a prime example of what can be achieved in military integration.

SaintMark

Getafix wrote:

Random fact (from Wikipedia). Potential for some Bond-Dutch colleaboration in an up-coming Bond movie? 'Bond of Friendship' would have made a great title for a (Brosnan) movie.

The Royal Marines and Netherlands Marine Corps are allied through a 'Bond of friendship'.

Since 1973, units of the Netherlands Marine Corps have formed part of the British 3 Commando Brigade during exercises and real conflict situations. Together, these form the UK/NL Landing Force. Either the First or the Second Marine Battalion can be assigned as the Dutch contribution to this force.

The cooperation between the Korps Mariniers and the Royal Marines has led to extensive integration in the areas of operations, logistics and materials. Within NATO this is seen as a prime example of what can be achieved in military integration.

KEEPING THE DUTCH HONOUR UP!! :D

Getafix

Or may be they could call the next one - 'Dutch Courage'. They've already got the sponsorship sorted. ;)

SaintMark

Getafix wrote:

Or may be they could call the next one - 'Dutch Courage'. They've already got the sponsorship sorted. ;)

Heineken is not my beer by a long shot, I do however find their marketing statagies qite smartly done so cannot fault them for working with EON.

SaintMark

SaintMark wrote:

Getafix wrote:

Or may be they could call the next one - 'Dutch Courage'. They've already got the sponsorship sorted. ;)

Heineken is not my beer by a long shot, I do however find their marketing stratagies quite smartly done so cannot fault them for working with EON.

josiah

GE>LALD
TND>TMWTGG
TSWLM>TWINE
MR>DAD

Brosnan: 2 Moore: 2
A tie for me

GBF

GE>LALD PB 1:0 RM
TND<TMWTGG PB 1:1 RM
TWINE>TSWLM PB 2:1 RM
DAD<MR PB 2:2 RM

So after 90 minutes is 2:2. So we need an overtime:

GE>FYEO PB 3:2 RM
TND<OP PB 3:3 RM
TWINE<AVTAK PB 3:4 RM

Final Score: 3:4

So in the very last minute Sir Roger wins!!

GBF

Something went wrong. So here again:

GE>LALD
TMWTGG>TND
TWINE>TSWLM
MR>DAD

So it is 2:2

Overtime:

GE>FYEO
OP>TND
AVTAK>TWINE

Final Score 4:3 for Sir Roger

ForYourEyesOnly

Not sure how fair it is to compare just Moore's first four, but if we do that, then Brosnan actually wins 2-1-0 for me despite having me having Moore above him as an actor:

GE > LALD

TND > TMWTGG

TSWLM >>>> TWINE

DAD = MR

I'd prefer listing the films like this, though: TSWLM > GE > OP > FYEO > TND > TWINE > AVTAK > TMWTGG > DAD = MR