The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1131132134136137190

Comments

  • DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 228</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In most of his Bond films, Roger Moore was the better actor in the lead cast.</b></font>

    I agree, in most yes, most notably MR where he was the only decent actor in the entire lot. But he is outshined by Lee and Walken, and Kotto holds his own with him in LALD.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I agree, in most yes, most notably MR where he was the only decent actor in the entire lot. But he is outshined by Lee and Walken, and Kotto holds his own with him in LALD.
    Michael Lonsdale is a very good actor. I thought that he did an excellent job as Drax, especially when you consider the script that he was working with. Good call on Yaphet Kotto though, who I believe is also underrated and does indeed give a great performance.

    I'm going to agree with this thesis. I think the only time Moore was completely upstaged was by Christopher Lee. Every other movie he either is better or on equal footing with his co-stars.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I would agree more than disagree. I have never really thought, "Wow, Roger is a bad actor in this thing" when watching any of his Bond films. He made it his own, had a great time of it and succeeded in bringing to the screen what his and EON's aims were. For that and more, I can't really say he was a bad actor in the slightest, just different in his approach.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    I don't think Walken ever outshines Moore in AVTAK. One might argue that Walken in the better actor, but I don't think Walken is at his best in AVTAK, far from it in fact. So Moore, who still gives a very good performance in AVTAK, actually impresses me more than Walken in that film. ;-)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I don't think Walken ever outshines Moore in AVTAK. One might argue that Walken in the better actor, but I don't think Walken is at his best in AVTAK, far from it in fact. So Moore, who still gives a very good performance in AVTAK, actually impresses me more than Walken in that film. ;-)
    I found Walken increadably good in AVTAK. He's every bit the psychopath he's supposed to be. Does he outshine Sir Roger? I don't relly yhink so, I especially like the scenes with them together. They make a not-so-good script work perfectly well. I may not completely agree with the direction Moore took Bond in, but he's indeed a very good actor, who's been very much underrated and typecast. Oh, and I agree on the basis that when he didn't outshine, he'd definately be as good as his co-stars.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I don't think Walken ever outshines Moore in AVTAK. One might argue that Walken in the better actor, but I don't think Walken is at his best in AVTAK, far from it in fact. So Moore, who still gives a very good performance in AVTAK, actually impresses me more than Walken in that film. ;-)

    I find Walkin in AVTAK to be very hammy. In some scenes he's good like when him and Bond meet. but when he shows his true colors he's just too giddy and full of the giggles. I can't take him seriously half the time. he's good but a little hammy.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Yes, overall I think I agree. Roger was the best lead actor in his films, with perhaps a draw with Christopher Lee and Yaphet Kotto.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 228</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>In most of his Bond films, Roger Moore was the better actor in the lead cast.</b></font>

    Would pretty much agree. Though Walken and Lee give him a run for his money in their respective movies.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Moore's 007 vehicles did put him in charge even well respected actors knew their place and did recognise the fact that Moore was the alpha dog. That said Moore played his role and his version of 007 with such gusto that actors did have to compete with his style, and I doubt any actor did mind as Roger Moore did prove to be a very likable fellow.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    pachazo wrote:
    I agree, in most yes, most notably MR where he was the only decent actor in the entire lot. But he is outshined by Lee and Walken, and Kotto holds his own with him in LALD.
    Michael Lonsdale is a very good actor. I thought that he did an excellent job as Drax, especially when you consider the script that he was working with. Good call on Yaphet Kotto though, who I believe is also underrated and does indeed give a great performance.

    I'm going to agree with this thesis. I think the only time Moore was completely upstaged was by Christopher Lee. Every other movie he either is better or on equal footing with his co-stars.

    Sorry friend, but I'd have to disagree about that one. I wasn't sure I was too right about that but after seeing Lonsdale in a bit part in "Ronin", I'm more convinced than ever that he is the George Lazenby of Bond villains- even more monotone (is that even possible?), not quite as wooden, and more boring than I can tolerate.
    DarthDimi wrote:
    I don't think Walken ever outshines Moore in AVTAK. One might argue that Walken in the better actor, but I don't think Walken is at his best in AVTAK, far from it in fact. So Moore, who still gives a very good performance in AVTAK, actually impresses me more than Walken in that film. ;-)

    I know you've explained your view and I know you have some logic in mind, but I've seen more than a few Walken films and I think he plays what he was given here extremely well. Not his very best, but perfect for this role. A very similar, OTT, larger than life villain much like Berkoff in OP- I feel he wanted to do Zorin the way he did and he nailed it for me, his and Gray's Dr. Frankenstein act are one of the few saving graces. By AVTAK, Sir Roger was a shell of what he once was as Bond and his part was not nearly as complex in it's demands. I always thought he was going through the motions like Connery in DAF, knowing it was his last and I didn't get the impression he wanted to make his last go-round particularly special. His recall of this time hasn't dissuaded me from that thought, his OP performance is much better although I should also mention that Berkoff really held his own and then some with Moore during their scenes and you could add him to my list of those I thought were better or on even footing.
  • Posts: 96
    I grew up on Moore's Bond, so he'll always hold a special place in my heart. The problem, as I watch his films now, is that he doesn't seem to be playing James Bond as much as he's playing Roger Moore playing James Bond. So, in my book, I would not say he's the "better actor" in any of his films.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    Quarrel wrote:
    I grew up on Moore's Bond, so he'll always hold a special place in my heart. The problem, as I watch his films now, is that he doesn't seem to be playing James Bond as much as he's playing Roger Moore playing James Bond. So, in my book, I would not say he's the "better actor" in any of his films.

    But even an actor who merely plays himself yet does a great job in a film, is a great actor, no? I could be mistaken.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Sorry friend, but I'd have to disagree about that one. I wasn't sure I was too right about that but after seeing Lonsdale in a bit part in "Ronin", I'm more convinced than ever that he is the George Lazenby of Bond villains- even more monotone (is that even possible?), not quite as wooden, and more boring than I can tolerate.

    Wow, I quite enjoyed his performance in that movie. It's all good though. I can understand your frustration of his monotone delivery. He's a lot like my psychology professor from my freshman year of college. I had to drop that class because I just couldn't take it anymore!

    DarthDimi wrote:
    But even an actor who merely plays himself yet does a great job in a film, is a great actor, no? I could be mistaken.

    Personally, I've never understood the whole "Moore is just playing himself" argument. There are parts of his personality in there of course but every actor incorporates that into their performance. If anything I think that you could criticize him for playing Simon Templar, especially in his earliest Bond performances.
    To answer your question though, I agree with you one hundred percent. Sometimes an actor is only great at playing one type of role. The very best actors have diversity but there's nothing wrong with being able to portray that one specific kind of character if you're great at it.
  • Posts: 96
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Quarrel wrote:
    I grew up on Moore's Bond, so he'll always hold a special place in my heart. The problem, as I watch his films now, is that he doesn't seem to be playing James Bond as much as he's playing Roger Moore playing James Bond. So, in my book, I would not say he's the "better actor" in any of his films.

    But even an actor who merely plays himself yet does a great job in a film, is a great actor, no? I could be mistaken.

    Personally, I don't think so. If all you're doing is walking on set and (basically) reading the lines, you're just being yourself - and being yourself is the exact opposite of acting.

    Many actors can do a 'great job in a film' simply by being themselves because they're very charismatic, have a great 'screen presence', etc. Whatever that magical something is that some people have that makes people want to watch them. Moore certainly had that. Connery had it in spades. But that doesn’t make them great actors in my book. To be a great actor you’ve got to have the ability to become someone else entirely, and not just rely on your natural magnetism. You can tell a great actor by looking at the diversity of roles they played, the range of emotions those roles required, and their ability to make you forget who they are and believe them to be the person they’re portraying. As great as Moore was as Bond, I never forget that I’m watching Roger Moore.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 229</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Bond's failure to rescue women has become a trademark of the Craig films.</b></font>
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,236
    Three films in, 5 women dead. Reasonably sure that's a new record. So, agree.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Agree. Death surrounds him like a disease. :))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Disagree. The women that die around him, from Vesper and Solange to Fields and M all died because of their own decisions. Vesper killed herself, and that is no fault of Bond's as he wasn't the one that manipulated her (that was Yusef). Solange got in over her head and kept by Dimitrios's side even though she knew of his criminal activities, and for that she made herself an easy target when things fell through. Fields was naive, and got too involved with the Greene situation for her own good, the tripping of Elvis being the icing on a very short-lived cake. If she would have done her job, she may have lived, but inexperience and some ignorance cost her the rest of her life. Severine's death was, like Solange a product of who she was involved with, in this case the crazed Silva. M chose herself to go with Bond and draw Silva in for the kill. She knew what she was getting into, and I think she knew she was headed to her death. She went out like a soldier, never giving up. I like to think she would have hated retirement anyway, and think it fitting that she died beside the man she so wonderfully helped cultivate.

    My point: in a vast array of cases, Bond was not a leading cause of why these women died. It many cases it comes down to their own bad or for lack of a better term, dangerous decisions that led to their respective demises, as unfortunate as it is. Though, Dan's era isn't really startling in body count at all. In Connery's era we saw a vast array of women from Mary Trueblood, Klebb (though deserved), Jill Masterson, Tilly Masterson, Fiona Volpe, Paula, Aki, Helga Brandt, Plenty O'Toole kick the proverbial bucket, and they were way more established than the likes of Solange, Fields or Severine by comparison.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    While I agree with Brady, in a broad sense, I both agree and disagree with the thesis. Bond could have reacted faster to rescue Vesper from the elevator, he could have made the shot and (possibly) rescued Severine. With the others, such as Solange and Fields, it was a much harder situation for him to control. If he told Solange to escape, she may have had a change of heart and informed Dimitrios of what was going on. With Fields, he didn't know he was walking into a trap. Even with Severine, she could've just been shot immediately after if Bond had made the shot.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,680
    Bond didn't 'fail to rescue' Solange or Fields, as he didn't know they were in danger in the first place. Disagree with thesis.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,331
    QBranch wrote:
    Bond didn't 'fail to rescue' Solange or Fields, as he didn't know they were in danger in the first place. Disagree with thesis.
    Hear hear!

  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,537
    Disagree. He faild protect M and Severine. You can blame him a bit he give up Mathis his Burn Notice when he asking him for help.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I agree. At this point it's starting become tired and cliched. Can we go just one movie without it please?


  • edited July 2013 Posts: 388
    Disagree. One could make a similar observation about Connery (Jill, Tilly, Paula, Aki, Plenty) or Moore (Rosie, Andrea, Felicca, Corinne, Lisl, Mayday.)

    I have to say this is a great thread. Well done to @DarthDimi for the interesting topics.
  • Posts: 96
    I would say, sadly, that the death of Bond girls have become something of a trademark (then again, Camille and Eve survived just fine). I would not say their deaths were Bond's "failure to rescue" them (save for Severine, which was an obvious failure on Bond's part). So on that technicality, I would disagree with the thesis.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,999
    Let's see....

    Solange - Bond caused her death by killing Dimitrios, leaving the next suspect to be Solange.
    Vesper - She took her own life. Though he failed to save Vesper, Bond can't be blamed for her death.
    Fields - Signed her own death warrant by tripping up Elvis on the stairs.
    Severine - Bond doesn't even attempt to save her.
    M - Like Solange, he might as well have killed M himself. He takes M back to Skyfall without the assistance of other 00's. Did Bond think that Silva would follow by himself?

    Thesis 229: He failed to save 3 of the 5, so I am going to agree with this one. Bond should go into the funeral business, he'd make a killing.
  • Posts: 96
    Hey, being a spy is dirty business. So is working in crime. People get killed. A lot. Is it Bond's fault? Or should the blame fall on the people (women) who choose to get mixed up with the master criminals and the like to begin with?
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Let's see....

    Solange - Bond caused her death by killing Dimitrios, leaving the next suspect to be Solange.
    Vesper - She took her own life. Though he failed to save Vesper, Bond can't be blamed for her death.
    Fields - Signed her own death warrant by tripping up Elvis on the stairs.
    Severine - Bond doesn't even attempt to save her.
    M - Like Solange, he might as well have killed M himself. He takes M back to Skyfall without the assistance of other 00's. Did Bond think that Silva would follow by himself?

    Thesis 229: He failed to save 3 of the 5, so I am going to agree with this one. Bond should go into the funeral business, he'd make a killing.

    Not entirely true. M was told to hide out and stay out of the way and as always, she refused to heed Bond's warnings. She got herself killed so disagree with you and the thesis in general. Every Bond short of Dalton has failed to protect a lady. Lazenby Bond losing his wife takes the cake in this respect.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 12,837
    Failing to rescue women? Disagree.

    But Bond girls dying, even if it's not necessarily Bond's fault? Yep. I've started expecting at least one bird to die per flick now.

    I remember talking with some others on here about Severine (this is pre SF), and we all thought she wouldn't last the whole film.
  • Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 229</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Bond's failure to rescue women has become a trademark of the Craig films.</b></font>

    Disagree: Death surrounds him whether your male or female. Bottom line is that he only focuses on what he has got to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.