Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Was it right in retrospect to change Moore's personality after TMWTGG?
It would be interesting to hear from Fleming enthusiasts particularly. Was it a betrayal of Fleming's dictum to make Bond a more charming "Cary Grant-like character" as opposed to this:
My personal opinion is that it was the right thing to do. The move away from Fleming is something I'd gladly accept. Moore COULD still be serious however but in much smaller, more appropriate doses.
My personal opinion is that it was the right thing to do. The move away from Fleming is something I'd gladly accept. Moore COULD still be serious however but in much smaller, more appropriate doses.
^ 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
Moore in TSWLM - AVTAK = Great.
Not as good as what he was in TMWTGG, but still the best Bond in the franchise !!
However, I think it was the right thing to do - for Roger Moore - because his obvious strengths were being, as you say, "Cary Grant-like" as opposed to what he was asked to do in LALD and TMWTGG, which I always found to be definitely good but not as commanding or confident as he was from TSWLM-AVTAK.
However, I think "moving away from Fleming" may be stretching things a bit - he arguably became closer to Fleming, not further away, after TMWTGG in FYEO and OP, specifically. Few things Moore does in LALD, for instance, speaks of Fleming to me - he does more-so in TMWTGG, but not as much as he does in FYEO and much of OP.
I sometimes wonder if there is a preconception that to "be Fleming" you have to be "dark and serious"....Yes you do, but it is not all about that, well, for me anyway.
The idea that there isn't any Fleming in Sir Rog's perceived lighter performances as 007 doesn't wash with me either. Take TSWLM, the scene in which his Bond is forced by XXX to admit he killed her lover (and the slightly guilty but blunt and assured manner in which he does so) aches of Fleming for me. One may argue there's more Fleming in his performances from FYEO and OP and, sure, with their stronger mix of the heavy and the light, the seriousness and the humour than in, say, his turn in MR, that's probably fair to say. Yet, I've always rated his performance in TMWTGG as his least accomplished, his least believable (in the far from believable world of Bond), because it feels uneven. Yes, there's humour there for sure (a lot of it black, in fact) and there's seriousness definitely, but the mix is clumsier than in his later efforts - by which time he was more comfortable in the role and, no doubt, more confident at mixing things up.
But, hey, that's just my view... ;)
Fleming, being the worldly inquisitive man he was, wrote this angle into Bond so superbly. Let`s not forget,back in the day when he was writing, things like scuba diving were actually bizare! Let alone going to a foreign country!!
I think Moore had a "knowingly dark" take on Bond.
On another note, another Bond actor written off to quick is Brosnan, who did espionage rather well. Not to say the romantic side to Bond.
It`s not all black clouds and bullets you know!
In my view Moore was simply too likeable to truly represent Fleming and, if I'm honest, he very rarely came into my head when reading the books. Even Brosnan came into my head more
Not that I don't like Moore - on the contrary. I like him VERY much.
You have to remember that the sillier humor was a carryover from DAF. Moore was naturally able to transcend this and use it well during his run as Bond.
Moore was a decent Sean Bond in many respects but he lacked the most important Bond characteristic, screen or literary. He moved like an ox. His action scenes and his fights were not convincing. He was not believable as a deadly double 0 killer. Otherwise he was quite passable as screen Bond.
Sure, he hits Andrea, but he also has his lighter, hardly Fleming, more Moore moments that we'd see throughout his run as Bond. Examples are his grabbing the sumo wrestler's butt cheeks and seducing the belly dancer's abdomen.
Those two moments are pure class from ol' Roger! Both crack me up every time. They mat be corny, but they never fail to spring a laugh!
In my opinion the worst Bond in the franchise.
All 7 films were laughable and a disgrace to Ian Fleming.
:)) the real disgrace, IMO, to Ian Fleming are Craig's Bond and his 2 films. Sir Rog was much closer to Fleming than DC, especially in movies like TMWTGG and FYEO. Sir Rog's films were a blessing.... and au contraire they have many Fleming elements in them.
I agree about Roger's Bond movies being very Fleming worthy. With TMWTGG and FYEO, we get such legends like when Bond interrogates Lazar, Andrea Anders, admits to wanting to kill Scaramanga at the lunch table, kills Scaramanga, kicks Locque's car off the cliff, and rock climbing up to St. Cyril's. I definitely think that Roger has more Fleming than Craig, though the latter is still good too. Also, I never really care if Bond in the movies is Fleming-worthy or not, I just want the movie to be entertaining and have that special Bond sensation. Fleming or not, it doesn't matter to me.
I love this man and his work in the Bond films but I like him best from TSWLM onwards.
I can see why, sometimes when I watch his first two it seems like he's a bit unsure of how to carry himself in certain scenes, but on the whole, I love his performances in LALD and TMWTGG. Still though, I understand what you mean about TSWLM hitting his stride.
The worst Bond? Hardly! I'd say that he outclasses the rest of the Bonds. Brosnan in TND & DAD and Connery in DAF & NSNA are the only ones somewhat near his level.
I like him best in MR, possibly followed by OP. In the latter he is on top of his game when it comes to one-liners. MR is just amazing all the way through.
I like Moore very much in TMWTGG (and LALD, where he showed his super amazing skills from the first second also), but I prefer the later portrayal (TSWLM-AVTAK). Although AVTAK and FYEO were IMO more serious performances and reminded me more of his performance in TMWTGG than the likes of TSWLM and MR. I think it was right to change his personality, but he was amazing before that anyway.
Yes the movie updated many things from the book to keep modern , but all in all its definitely the only film that borrowed and used the actual basis of a Fleming book and fully interpreted it into the film.
So to say CR 06 is not Fleming oriented is completely absurd.
IMO, OHMSS is the most faithful adaptation of a Bond novel.
CR'06 completly butchered the novel. And the film itself doesn't have the 'Fleming touch', which makes films like DAF and TMWTGG much closer to Fleming than CR'06... Craig's first film is the least Fleming-esque film in the franchise along with QOS and TWINE.
Fleming's novels were very much different to the Craig films... imo the novels were closer to a Moore/Connery film than anything else.
even the darkest, most gritty novel, which imo is MR, was nothing like the overly-seriousness and overly-moody Craig films.... remember the army of Drax' men, all with shaved heads and moustaches ? much closer to the Moore-esque bizarre than Craig's overly-realistic films.....
I sometimes wonder what novels some people have read here, because I found Fleming's work much more comical, bizarre and larger-than-life than what people say here. I don't recognize Craig's Bond or his films at all when I read Fleming. I've read all the novels many times, and I always feel like I'm watching a Moore film when I read one.
Alot of the stuff they "updated" I don't think they needed to. Why change Bonds 2 kills to get double 0 status? And why change Vespers death to that stupid CGI stuff with the sinking house?
I agree. DN, FRWL, GF, and TB also come pretty close. And, I suppose, TLD.
The giant squid and the Garden of Death were the only really fantastical element of Flemings books. And since the books were now following the films at that point. YOLT was 1963/4. I always thought he had one eye on a cinematic treatment with that book.
There little tips of the bizarre ie Oddjobs hat, the golden girl, the voodoo, Klebbs poison shoes but mostly the books were hard nose thrillers which made the little tips of the bizzare but not enough to overshadow the geopolitics and espionage.
They certainly never had any invisible cars, Bondolas, submarine swallowing supertankers or obiting space stations or Jaws in love.
There is a thin line between the exotically bizarre and the overcamp and cruddy.
Why change it? Well, a sinking palazzo is more dramatic then just a corpse with a note on it. I love the palazzzo sinking. Its one of my favourite bits. I love the fight with Craig pulling the bolt out of his back and the bystanders gasping as the thing sinks into the canal.
It's very much in the tradition of the cinematic Bond: "Did they really sink a palazzo in Venice?"
Maybe Bond leaves, to meet somebody or fetch something, and is attacked by Quantum, has a dramatic shootout/fight somewhere (with no/less CGI), and rushes back to find Vesper's corpse with a note on. I think they shouldn't have done the sinking palazzo, too much CGI. I find it intresting that people slag off DAD for using alot of CGI but in CR it's fine.