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
Fleming wrote quite a lot of "absurd" stuff long before the (official) films hit the screen. Dr No, arguably his most absurd book was written four years before the film was made.
I'm curious as to if Lazenby is anyone's favorite.
Well, yes, the sinking palazzo looked stunning between model, cgi and location filming.
The cgi in DAD looked like a child scribbling crayon on its face.
you are the most biased and predictable member on MI6..... you have to complain about everything Brosnan related and worship everything Craig related.... is the world so black-and-white for you ? you don't even have to post anymore, since we know you are in love with Daniel Craig and hate Pierce Brosnan with a passion. please stop commenting Craig and Brosnan since we already know everything you think about them...... how many times do you have to state your views on PB and DC ? we know everything you think about them, so please let's move on to the other actors....
Moore played Bond like a Playboy and not like a Fleming's spy, he started all that steal a car or plane and wreak havoc with an unlimited budget for mayhem if this is Fleming's Bond I'll eat my hat.
The Bond we see in the PTS of CR is more IF in one scene than RM is in his whole tenure, seriously that was funny reading Moore is Fleming like, any more jokes?
GL is not my fav Bond but I prefer him to RM & PB and OHMSS is my no. 1 film of the series.
I am not rising to yet another of your tantrums.
It looked good, better than DAD I'm not denying that. But I'm just not a fan of too much CGI, no matter how good it looked. The CGI in the Transformers films looks good but it's still way too much.
lol - I see you have no argument..... :)) apart from constantly worshipping DC and hating PB that is..... =)) you are so predictable ! why do you keep giving us your views on DC and PB when we know all about them ?
Where do you find any sorts of CGI in the end of Casino Royale? Because everything was done with models or/and in 007 Stage.
The producers and writers were wise to taylor the films and play to Moore's strengths. Leave Fleming behind? Not too much but can't argue with success.
Moore had the longest tenue and made the most films. He managed to endear himself to audiences worldwide, due in part to the fact the films were taylored and evolved to fit his strengths.
I don't know, but it did look a bit 'fakey' at times. not as bad as the parasurfing scene, but still a stain on what was a perfectly shot film (CR)...
So moonraker had some guards in it with shaved heads and moustaches? so that makes it more Fleming oriented towards the Moore outings than CR 06 which used the whole basis of the book CR as its template for the whole movie practically.
Im not sure what you're smoking but please tell me what is.
Moore's films are anything but Fleming. Was a flying stationwagon in the book TMWTGG? TMWTGG (film)is a disgrace to the book.
Was there free running, an airport bomb and a sinking house in the book CR? Back in the 70s, people enjoyed the campy stuff, so the series had to adapt. Just like they had to adapt the CR book to fit in with the modern day world.
That said, I would prefer if no CGI appeared in Bond at all. Once you know that it has been used somewhere in the film, you are never sure whether what you are watching is CGI'd or not. IMO, this takes away an important level of intensity and believability. Traditionally the films are OTT, but because the stunts were always real, they had a level of realism that compensated. I think the sinking Palazzo just about passes on that level - daft but not so implausible as to ruin the movie. Actually, quite the reverse - enjoyable OTT, as a good Bond sequence often is.
And yes, I thought the change in Moore's approach with TSWLM was a wise move. Spy is one of my all time favourites.
Vesper dying is the entire point of CR: "The bitch is dead.'
He could have said that after killing Le Chiffre "The job is done, the bitch is dead".
I honestly think they should have skipped her death, same with OHMSS. Tracy could have been a normal Bond girl (no marriage) and survives the movie, only to be never seen again.
I would agree with a lot of this, but I'd also add FYEO in this mix if we're talking about the first two Moore entries. Definitely one of Moore's darker and more serious efforts. LALD was a great debut and a classic Bond that surpassed Sir Sean's final EON film in many ways. Say what you want about TMWTGG, but I think Sir Roger is great in this one.
I don't care for the "hitting his stride" term when referring to Sir Roger's 3rd entry. I think he found his distilled interpretation, but to say stride is almost like saying his first two films were warmups, with which I would totally disagree.
Good call Steve. Please allow me. DC, my young friend, do you know what the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" means? After reading the thread, you were the first person to bring up Craig as soon as people starting slagging your hero. I just talked about this with you not even two weeks ago. It's you who almost without fail drags Craig into conversations where he hasn't been brought up. I should ask you the same thing, why do you keep bringing up Craig when everyone knows everything you think about him?
Wouldn't be surprised to see Disco issuing some more warnings. It's a shame but sometimes people forget to engage their brain before they start typing :(
I would without doubt add For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy to the list of solid Moore performances, along with the first two. I think he is, in these films stronger than his others. Indeed "hitting his stride" also implies he got better at said point, when I in fact feel he went in a weaker direction, personally I think this is because of a weaker script in The Spy Who Loved Me - again, non a popular opinion.
Just wanted to say that this scene defines Roger's Bond as being a smartass and a lovable rogue.
The main problem with Moore's 2nd Bond wasn't Moore himself, it was the badly thought through script and it's execution. The Super Secret Agent vs Supreme Assassin is a great idea and was completely wasted. For starters it didn't need the added twist of Andrea Anders sending Bond the golden bullet with his name inscribed on it as it deflated the final showdown between Bond and Scaramanga, nor did it need the super-weapon to give Bond something to blow up at the end, after all this is a hired assassin not Blofeld.
If the producers and writers had actually followed through with better action set pieces such as the scene after the "kick in the head" at the dojo, a wonderful moment let down by a stupid schoolgirl catfight afterwards, then this movie might have been better recieved by its fans. As it is it's a lightweight James Bond movie with a heavyweight Bond villain that does nothing and goes nowhere. So what do they do next? Cobble all the best bits of the past Bond movies together and turn Bond into a comedy show piece. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you... TSWLM and its comedy twin MR.
As for Moore being compared with Cary Grant, he just didn't have the polish, the comfort in front of the camera, or the comic timing of Grant.
The series just became silly during the Moore era.
He was exceptionally good in his first two. However, I don't think that's where it stopped, because he really pulled off a nice piece of work with FYEO, and even AVTAK. OP was weaker between those two. As for TSWLM, he had a nice blend of about everything. In MR, it was more on the jokey side, but he did it excellently!
I may have agreed with this in the past, but having finally gotten around to watching some Moore films (I could never get through one even at 13 years old - Moore and his movies were too immature for my tastes) I don't think that it's true.
The only actor that I ever thought was "playing" - or more accurately, "playing *at*" Bond was Brosnan. He was a better actor than Lazenby and had more charm than Dalton but he didn't have the gravity, the toughness, or the presence. He seemed a little like a little boy trying to be tough - pushing that little bit too hard so you can see he doesn't really believe in it himself.
As for Moore I used to despise him when I was a kid. Who was this wimpy, punning clown who was pretending to be James Bond? But after many years I realized that he was good at his version of Bond - one that I didn't like. But that isn't the same as his performances being bad. Moore *did* eventually convince me that he was Bond, just not the Bond that I wanted to watch.
After finally having seen TMWTGG I was quite surprised at how Moore was a bit of a bastard in that film - and I mean that in a good way. I found his performance in LALD a little too comic, and TMWTGG was a nice tip towards a tougher, darker Bond (while still being charming). After finally seeing it - just a few weeks ago - I found myself wishing that they had kept this iteration of Bond - I might have actually liked Moore then. But I guess the disastrous box office forced a big change in direction...
Moore was never going to be the Second Coming of Connery but he certainly could have been a lot closer if he or the producers wanted him to.