Roger Moore Should Never Have Been Bond!

thelordflasheart

There's alot said about who is and who isn't a great actor. Yet there is acting and then there is acting.
Acting 100 years ago was all theatrical complete with spinning eyeballs and grand gestures. Dalton comes from that tradition, and his style simply doesn't suit the minimalistic style required for great film acting. I doubt there would be another Bond actor I would prefer to see on the West End stage, but it's no coinsidence that Dalton hasn't had the film career many on here think he should have had. He's a leading man for the TV movie industry.

Connery however is a great film actor. Charisma is part of it. The rest can be seen simply by watching him very closely. Watch him when someone else is speaking. His movement, his expressions. It's a master class in screen acting.

Roger Moore isn't really one or the other. He had enough about him in the 70s to be a reasonably successful leading man. And also a huge, huge star on TV. He hasn't got enough in his locker though to be a great film actor, merely competant and likeable. It's near enough the same with Brozzer.

Craig is the first great film actor to play the role since Connery.

And Lazenby? Had he got the chance to forge a career after Bond, he would have made it I'm sure. But his reputation and prickly personality more or less ruined him. Glances of what he was capable of were there in OHMSS and later in Saint Jack. Maybe a missed opportunity. Only 'maybe' mind you.

One of the best things that I ever heard about film acting was a tip from Michael Caine in an instructional video on it. Lots of great technical tips, but the one which stood out to me was that the camera picks up things so subtle (especially when your face is 20 feet high on a movie screen) that all you need do is "think the thought" and it will show up in your eyes. Trying to push it any more will often result in over-acting.

Take a look at the scene in TWINE when Brosnan confronts Elektra:



It's not just the "hand-waving" that people have mentioned; it's the vocal intonations and the body language as well. Everything about Brosnan's performance is "pushing too hard" to make the point (I mentioned in another thread that he also seemes to go for the most obvious line readings).

Now compare that to Dalton's performance. Some people call his performance "theatrical" but I wouldn't use that word. It's not pushed as far as Brosnan's and there's more...dare I say "conviction" to it. Dalton makes sure that you always know the exact meaning behind what he's saying, thinking, or feeling, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. A different style to be sure, but not one that rings false to me.

NicNac

Good post @thelordflasheart, I'm always a little too tough on Timbo. It's a failing of mine :-D

BAIN123

I not sure Connery is as such a "great" actor and I wouldn't call him particularly adaptable. His strong, thick Scottish accent kind of prevents him from being anyone other than Sean Connery. HOWEVER he does have two crucial qualities, charisma and star power. These two qualities alone make for a successful film career.

Brosnan isn't a "great" actor either but, like Connery he also has these 2 qualities (despite what George Lazenby said in 1995). In regard to "pushing it" TWINE is nothing comared to this:

j7wild

I think DAF would had been a much better film if Lazenby was in it. Connery came back to the role under pressure and for an exuberant $1.2 million paycheck and he didn't seem to care about the quality of the script!

00Beast

I absolutely love Roger Moore's Bond! He is the best 007 by far, and has not been beaten, or will ever be beaten! Why do so many people hate him? He is so talented as 007!

SirHenryLeeChaChing

From someone who was already a big fan when Sir Roger made his debut, let me say that many Bond fans were in favor of him replacing Sean. Most people did not feel the same way about George. Myself, I was already familiar with Roger from his work as "The Saint" and agreed when my Dad said "check this guy out, I think he would be the perfect natural successor to Connery, let me know what you think". He just felt right in the role and LALD just felt right following DAF in it's overall tone. The only problem I had with Roger is that he stayed too long and OP should have been his final film. Dalton would have been much more believable as a love interest for Tanya Roberts, and as an adversary for Walken and Jones. I feel if there was any "ultimate missed opportunity" in the Bond films, Dalton only doing two ranked ahead of Lazenby only doing one. Granted, another turn with Lazenby would have assured a true story of revenge in DAF, although in a campy and quirky kind of way Bond still does try to rightfully kill Blofeld several times during the movie. I guess that's why I'm probably one of the few who was OK with the FYEO PTS. Blofeld dying in that baffle sub just wasn't satisfying nor believable enough for me.

About Brosnan. A lot of people I knew including my Dad and myself felt Brosnan certainly had the right look to him, and a few things pre-Bond I saw him in made me think he might have the acting chops as well. As it turned out, at least IMO, the subpar scripts did him no favors as far as him establishing an interpretation that he was entirely comfortable with. Still, the franchise did well enough at the box office with him aboard to keep people interested.

Daniel Craig was already a terrific actor and on his way to being an A-lister before he became Bond. I think he didn't need Bond as much as the franchise needed him. A billion in box office and another classic (the last being LTK) in Casino Royale certainly benefited everyone involved and proved the decision to hire him to be the correct one.

Orbis_Non_Sufficit

Oh, the title of this thread simply broke my heart to pieces.
Roger Moore never being Bond? That's like Paul not being a part of the Beatles. I couldn't imagine having enjoyed the Bond series as much without Roger Moore starring in the title role. He was my first James Bond and ultimately my favorite in the role, as shocking a statement as that may be to some. He was charismatic, witty, serious... and he has one helluvan eyebrow to bring the mix all together. My Top 3 favorite Bond films naturally starred him in the role: A View to a Kill, Octopussy, and Moonraker.

MajorDSmythe

If AVTAK had been a Dalton film, I could only hope that they would hae picked a better actress for Stacey Sutton. Failing that, Bond shoots Stacey upon meeting her, that saves us from haing to hear her squeel like a pig later in the film. "Jayems." *shudders*

imranbecks

Roger Moore was a good and enjoyable Bond. I like him. He added more lighthearted moments than Connery or Lazenby did. After Roger Moore left, Timothy Dalton took over the role, and James Bond felt really serious, even more serious than the first two Bond actors which was a huge leap..

Master_Dahark

I love Roger Moore- he's not really Fleming Bond (sometimes he was) but he sure was enjoyable and fun to watch!
I mean this in a totally positive way:
Comparing Moore to the likes of Dalton, Craig, or Connery is like comparing Adam West to Michael Keaton- they're both Batman, but one is serious and one is more for fun. But I love them both! To me, it's the same thing in a way- although Moore wasn't quite as wacky as Adam West... :-))

CrabKey

Connery was Bond. Moore seemed to be playing the role.

timmer

Being familiar with Rog's work in both the Saint and the Persuaders, I was very leery of him being Bond tough enough and my concerns were born out with the lighter touch he brought. It was apparent from the outset that he was no Connery.
But with Lazer having fallen out of favour ( a tragedy that) Rog was probably the way to go. I'm not terribly impressed with any of the actors that have followed the Rog so in that light the Rog's work holds up well by comparison IMO. Even though he couldn't pull off the Sean/George toughness and intensity, I like that he didn't attempt to change the character in any meaningful way. Rog kept the train rolling along and ultimately made 7 very Bond worthy films. He did a pretty darn good job despite his lack of natural athleticism which Sean and George had in spades.

forgotmyusername

I hate to admit it, but without RM,, 007 films would be dead right now. He's not my flavour of Bond, but he kept the British end up during the difficult 70s and 80s period for Bond.

My only contention is that during the 70s - this was a golden era for cinema in general. I didn't see any of that clever writing in any of his outings during that period. Pity. Bond should have had a classic movie in that era.

SC - classic 60s with GF.

GL - classic 60s with OHMSS.

RM - never did or did he?

TD - classic 80s with TLD

PB - classic 90s with GE

DC - not yet

j7wild

I like Moore as Bond except he should had not made AVTAK and he could had used an extra Bond film that was like FYEO and TSWLM instead of MR and TMWTGG

forgotmyusername

for you j7wild

00Beast

Hmm.....can't say I agree with this topic at all..... :-W

BAIN123

If we didn't have Moore as Bond we wouldn't have one of the best one-liners:

"keeping the British end up sir!"

This topic is redundant.

00Beast

If we didn't have Moore as Bond we wouldn't have one of the best one-liners:

"keeping the British end up sir!"

This topic is redundant.

Thank you BAIN.

OHMSS69

Roger fit right in to the post DAF 70's Bond. EON had decided to lighten the tone and even have fun with the character. Granted it was not until his third outing as Bond that Moore finally hit his stride.
Criticized by hard core fans but Moore's pictures made a crap load of money. The fact that he hung on until well in his fifties is interesting. By FYEO he was old enough to be his leading ladies' father! Still he managed to endear himself to audiences and to many fans Roger Moore WAS James Bond. ...

QBranch

Should have never been Bond?! Such blasphemy! Live and Let Haters Die!