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
I guess you can't take Moore seriously at all, which is a shame, because I do feel like he delivered in a big way in FYEO's dramatic moments. Dalton is a good actor, and I'm sure he could have gotten the job done, but I much prefer the film the way it is. To me, it seems more jarring having the most vengeful Bond (Dalton) trying to stop Melina's revenge operation.
Couldn't agree more. I think Sean is great in DIAMONDS. Bad-ass yet he has a dry wit and sharp humor. He seems re-energized since YOLT and clearly had a better time on this film.
As for his appearance, it actually never has bothered me like it does many. I'll admit he does kind of look like someone's dad or a high school gym coach here, but he had just finished The Anderson Tapes, and didn't have time to get back into Bondian shape prior to production. I cut him some slack on that. Interesting how the poster art gives him an almost Steve McQueen hairstyle.
As for Rog in FYEO, I think it's one of his best performances hands down. He has some wonderful straight dialogue sequences and is genuinely concerned when trapped on top of the ski jump. He also looks tougher and his age works for him rather than against him. I really don't understand many fans obsession with having Tim in this one (or AVTAK). As much as I love The Daltonator, I couldn't dream of replacing Sir Roger in FYEO. In fact I love all three of Roger's 80's Bonds. He had really grown into the part, and is especially bad ass in Eyes Only and Octopussy.
It's not that I can't take Moore seriously at all, it's just that I can't take him as a serious Bond after the camp Bond he had portrayed in the previous four films. If you're gonna change the nature of the character (which I'm fine with doing every decade or so), you need a new actor.
You prefer the harder Connery in the comedic DAF because he brought a harder edge to that silly movie than Moore would have delivered (I think Moore would have been better in DAF), but you prefer the comedic Moore in the "serious" FYEO because Dalton would have been too hard/intense. Hmm.
It seems you simply believe that everything is perfect the way it is, no matter how it is, and there's a lot to be said for that philosophy. I don't say that you're wrong. As you said, different strokes. :-)
I think folks are missing my point.
I'm not saying that either Connery or Moore delivered bad performances in DAF or FYEO (though in Connery's case, that's debatable), only that those two movies, to me, were both reboots. DAF rebooted Bond into the camp silly era for which Roger was perfect. FYEO rebooted Bond into a more serious era for which Dalton was perfect. Again, I simply believe that if you reboot the character, you should change the actor.
Out of curiosity, how would you all feel about Brosnan in CR (with everything else about the movie being exactly the same)?
For me, it's jarring to see the same actor that had portrayed Bond one way, to suddenly see him playing an essentially different character in a movie with a completely different tone. It destroys the continuity.
I don't pretend the 70s Bond is the exact same character as the 60s Bond, any more than I pretend that the Craig Bond is the same character as the Brosnan Bond. Each time the series is rebooted, I settle in to enjoy a new version of the Bond series as though it was starting fresh for a new audience.
Can't get over the sheer awesomeness of this track!!
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6TrEULmKvU"; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And look, of course I understand your point of being thrown off by the change in tone. There are many people who feel that way about SP, as it reminded them of a Brosnan film in many ways, and they didn't like Craig's lighter take on the character. Personally, that aspect didn't bother me much (for the most part). It was mainly the story that I didn't like.
I prefer this one. Lots of Bond theme motifs
no worries... :-)
regarding sp though, i see that as a natural evolution toward more campiness & ott that every rebooted era experiences, rather than a drastic change in tone. sp, to me, was only a little more campy than sf, which was more campy than quantum.
In CR it was like a cold withdrawal from the more campy Brosnan era which also worked but also disturbed some more traditional Bond fans.
DAF didn't require much acting and it's enjoyable if you accept it for what it is, rather than comparing to DN or FRWL
I find Roger Moore to be the best James Bond. He invented the character a new after Sean Conney was the original James Bond and very iconic.
Mr Moore was a new unique version of Bond. A much needed new vision of cinema Bond for 1970's and early 1980's.
Only his age prevented him from doing more movies.
His performances are great and he adapted very well to the different kind of films he got. Even when (too) old, he still dominated the screen. Something I don't find true for Mr Brosnan or Mr Craig. Except maybe Goldeneye and Spectre.
To be fair maybe Mr Craig got too good an ensemble cast in his films, so he could not stick out.
Don't mean disrespect, but this is a place for controversy.
I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!! I always welcome that kind of love for Sir Roger. I'll even go one controversial opinion further and say I believe he was good for at least one Bond after AVTAK. Being as lean as he was in VIEW just added to the age, whereas by 1987 (in Happy Anniversary 007) he looked far better, more like he did in Octopussy.
Another point I'd make is that in each Bond he did he gave his 110%. There is no film of his in which he looks too bored, or as if he's just coasting along. He was fully engaged in the part. I tie him with Sean as my favorite Bond actually.
So it was too much?
I can't say this even of Connery, I wouldn't watch YOLT for him, but for the end sequence.
It's his oil rig. I can't deal with it. It haunts me during the night.
You and your excuses...
I'd say in AVTAK he coasts through it for the most part. His suave act feels like just that - an act. Moore doing his usual schtick.
Watching that early scene in the sub iceberg shortly after finishing OP something felt a bit off with Moore in the latter.
Are you saying that Roger dropped the soap in AVTAK before he actually dropped the soap?
yes...yes I am :p
Personally Moore is the only thing saving AVTAK from being the worst Bond film by far.
It may have the best ever Bond theme, one of the best scores and a brilliant gun-barrel and title sequence.
It may have a great end-game in the mines and on the bridge.
But the rest is meh...to a point where it all is parody.