The ROGER MOORE Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1235745

Comments

  • This community really is a fascinating microcosm of Bond fans. Timothy Dalton is highly regarded here, Sir Sean Connery is rightly respected as the original (although perhaps he doesn't have as many passionate defenders here as he deserves), George Lazenby often disappears under the radar a bit, but he has his enthusiastic defenders, and Daniel Craig is immensely popular (and rightly so) as the current bearer of the torch.

    Then we come to Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore. They seem to get the most bashing but a lot of that, I'm sure, comes with the changing styles of the time. I also feel that when Rog gets criticised, it is usually done with a certain amount of affection, as if even the most rabidly anti-Moore poster cannot really be mad at Rog personally, and certainly not for long. He is the fluffy puppy with the big eyes of the Bond franchise. Poor Pierce though. Moore and Brosnan fans probably have more in common than most combinations on here. The lighter, escapist, touch is not in vogue at the moment.

    But what a light touch Roger Moore had! I think I'll get snug in here, light up a rather large cigar (a la Live and Let Die), meditatively swirl a glass of bourbon, while contemplating the glories of a reversible safari suit. The Roger Moore Appreciation Thread should be, in my humble opinion, a tongue-in-cheek, utterly cultivated, celebration of the the most elegant Bond of them all. As one perceptive journalist pointed out: Moore was so smooth his eyebrows could have slipped off his face.

    We've all heard the criticisms of the Moore era on numerous other threads, but there are certainly Moore fans out there. For some, Roger Moore as Bond is a secret pleasure. As Ian Fleming (and his most famous creation) recognised and practised, it is healthy to indulge in pleasure, every now and then.

    So what is Sir Rog up to at the moment? He has just finished filming a cameo for the new version of The Saint (*halo appears above head to THAT tune*) which he is co-producing with his son Geoffrey. Let's hope it is a little glitzier, and has a bigger budget, than Rog's original version in the 1960s. Moore explained recently in an interview in the Daily Telegraph (Feb 2) that:

    "“In the first series, I recall standing in freezing rain on the back lot at Elstree Studios. They set up a rubber palm tree that was bending in the rain and put a little sign up on the screen that said, 'Bahamas’. Another time it said, 'Paris’ – except we were filming in Borehamwood High Street and there were red buses trundling past!”

    Long live Sir Rog!
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    But what a light touch Roger Moore had! I think I'll get snug in here, light up a rather large cigar (a la Live and Let Die), meditatively swirl a glass of bourbon, while contemplating the glories of a reversible safari suit. The Roger Moore Appreciation Thread should be, in my humble opinion, a tongue-in-cheek, utterly cultivated, celebration of the the most elegant Bond of them all. As one perceptive journalist pointed out: Moore was so smooth his eyebrows could have slipped off his face.

    We've all heard the criticisms of the Moore era on numerous other threads, but there are certainly Moore fans out there. For some, Roger Moore as Bond is a secret pleasure. As Ian Fleming (and his most famous creation) recognised and practised, it is healthy to indulge in pleasure, every now and then.

    He's not a secret pleasure to me at all, he's without question my favourite Bond. You sum up a lot of what is great about him above. For me, there are a couple of reasons he's not so highly regarded. Firstly, he's no 'Fleming' Bond, there are dashes here and there, but all in all, he's his own creation and he's certainly not a slave to the literature.

    A lot of people find this hard to deal with. Personally, I'm happy to jettison Fleming and roll with Roger, because what he provides is pure, unadultered enjoyment. This is not to suggest I don't like Fleming, I read the books every year without fail. I just don't need to justify or validate my enjoyment of a Bond film by citing it's connection to the big man. Times change, incarnations come and go.

    I think a lot of fans have an unequivocal vision of Bond in there head. I don't particularly. I can enjoy Roger on the same level as Daniel, despite the fact they are worlds apart. It's just about getting your head in a different space. I don't put on a Roger film to watch him suffer, and I don't put on a Daniel film to be whisked away on an outlandish adventure. I'm happy to indulge in the many incarnations, of which I find Roger the most fun, the most watchable, and the most downright cool. He effortlessly breezes through his movies in an almost untouchable fashion. Yes it's ridiculous, yes it can be kitsch, and yes you have to suspend your disbelief. But hell, it's just so much goddman fun, and not a sullen, pouting face in sight!

  • Posts: 1,052
    I'm sure there are plenty of Rog fans in the closet, but me I've been proudly waving the flag of Sir Rog since my first Bond viewing experience.

    Having watched every film again recently, I genuinley believe that the Rog films are the most re-watchable.

    Brosnan seems to be getting bashed a lot these days, to me it seems that Rog has that certain something that even the most ridiculous moments he can get away with, yet not Brosnan, perhaps the word I'm looking for is "Rogness".
  • I completely agree with you both. A new word should enter the Oxford English Dictionary next year.

    'Rogness': the art of 'getting away with it.'

    'Getting away with it' it should be said, with a great deal of panache.

    I feel for those poor closeted Moore fans. They should be tempted out of the darkness and into the broad sunlit uplands of Moore Appreciation.

    In all seriousness, his films certainly are very re-watchable, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of fun escapism every now and then.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I also love the shifts in tone, from a bonkers sight gag one minute to deadly serious the next.

    The world would be happier place if everyone just admitted that Rog belongs atop the pedastal of Bonds.
  • You really would have to be a miserable bugger to not enjoy Roger Moore.
  • Yes, it's because of the bonkers sight gags, that make the deadly serious moments in a Moore film all the more effective. He can be funny, suave, and apparently lightweight, but cross him and impede his mission, and he will kill you.

    A man killed with a quip is equally as dead as a man killed with a snarl.

    Sir Rog holds a place of great affection in the hearts of many Bond fans, who appreciate what he has done, and what he continues to do, for the series.

    Now, he has to show that new Simon Templar how it's done...
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    The only thing i didnt like from the Moore era is that they turned Jaws into a complete joke in Moonraker.
  • Add to that , was staying on longer than required, too much emphasis on humor, especially as it wasn't all that long before at a time of his tenure, that Connery was the epitome of how James Bond should be. An almost perfect illustration of the Fleming creation, that only Dalton also matched

    If I do a quick run down of my overall enjoyment of Moore's seven Bond films -

    LALD - 9.5 / 10

    TMWTGG - 8.5 / 10

    TSWLM - 7 / 10

    MR - 8.5 / 10

    FYEO 7 / 10

    OP - 7 / 10

    AVTAK 2 / 10

    You can see there that Moore for the most part, while a mixed bag - put together some fun releases that offered a bit of everything. He came in at the right time I feel with an outstanding debut and overall movie release, but sadly stayed on longer than was necessary. Damn pity in retrospect, in that he embarrassed himself a bit towards the end there
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    When it comes to FYEO i consider the pre title sequence as somewhat an apology for DAF's lack of a proper way to bring closure to Tracy's death in OHMSS. Yeah it was goofy in RM manner but it at least closed the book on the Blofeld phase of the films.
  • Posts: 224
    No, I will always insist that Moore should of finished in 1981 with FYEO. At least it would of ended on a serious note. Yes Octopussy is a decent watch, lots to get involved in, but some of the humor was questionable to say the least, but I'd much rather of had Moore finish then, than his final appearance in AVTAK

    Probably about my third or fourth favorite Bond. Can't compete with names like Dalton or Connery but for his twelve year tenure, gave us a bit of everything

    We was after all, Bond for my very favorite release, Live and Let Die, and did give a very good performance that year, it was only towards the very end that things turned a bit sour for Mr Moore. Not only a decent Bond at times, but a fine upstanding individual above all else

    I read that Cubby wanted Rog for AVTAK because he didn't want it to appear that Sean's comeback in NSNA, two years earlier, forced him (Cubby) to run off Rog from the franchise. I don't think it's a coincidence that "insiders" speculated during the filming of AVTAK that this was Rog's swan song. That's why the crew and cast gave him a long standing ovation at the end of his final scene in AVTAK. I've always been under the impression that Rog was ready to voluntarily turn in his license after FYEO. I think if Rog had known how unbearable Grace Jones would have been to work with, he would have told Cubby "no way" would he do a 7th Bond.

    I agree with many, above, who say that Roger Moore's ...Bond.... was a "good time" Bond. As I've said before, Rog's ...Bond....was a loveable rogue.

  • The over emphasis on humor was his ultimate downfall by the end of his tenure. Whoever took over the part in 1986 was going to a damn improvement, and that Dalton finally took it, not only got the franchise serious again but injected a much needed shot in the arm after Moore threatened to sink Fleming's character without trace in his final appearances. Bond got back again to how we remembered it, with the Dalton introduction, that had been missing for over 20 years, but it's true that Moore did for the most part, give the audience a fun ride. But I'm not one for a humor-esque Bond and unfortunately Moore delivered too much of that at times, in instances we've all seen and need of no elaboration
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 140
    jka12002 wrote:
    When it comes to FYEO i consider the pre title sequence as somewhat an apology for DAF's lack of a proper way to bring closure to Tracy's death in OHMSS. Yeah it was goofy in RM manner but it at least closed the book on the Blofeld phase of the films.

    I always got the sense that Cubby & Co. weren't done with Blofeld at the end of DAF, but McClory's lawyers must have gotten in the way immediately after that. Thus, the brief confrontation with "Bald Guy" in the FYEO PTS was just a means of bringing closure to the matters of Tracy and Blofeld. Also, the acknowledgement of Tracy and her tragic death in the Moore films was the first step in the rehabilitation of OHMSS, a film that for a while was largely forgotten or ignored.
  • CIACIA
    Posts: 120
    Roger Moore is witty and an English gentlemen and delivered one of the best portrayals of Bonds. I would rank him second, tied with Craig.
  • Posts: 140
    Brosnan seems to be getting bashed a lot these days, to me it seems that Rog has that certain something that even the most ridiculous moments he can get away with, yet not Brosnan, perhaps the word I'm looking for is "Rogness".

    Yeah, what happened is that, with Dalton's Back-to-Fleming experiment deemed a failure, MGM and EON spent the next several years trying to recapture the magic of Moore's heyday. As it turned out, however, the spell just didn't quite work right without the secret ingredient. Rogness, indeed.

    The bland repetition that was Bond in the '90s may well be what '70s Bond would have been like with someone else (say, Michael Billington) in the role.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    00Ed wrote:
    jka12002 wrote:
    When it comes to FYEO i consider the pre title sequence as somewhat an apology for DAF's lack of a proper way to bring closure to Tracy's death in OHMSS. Yeah it was goofy in RM manner but it at least closed the book on the Blofeld phase of the films.

    I always got the sense that Cubby & Co. weren't done with Blofeld at the end of DAF, but McClory's lawyers must have gotten in the way immediately after that. Thus, the brief confrontation with "Bald Guy" in the FYEO PTS was just a means of bringing closure to the matters of Tracy and Blofeld. Also, the acknowledgement of Tracy and her tragic death in the Moore films was the first step in the rehabilitation of OHMSS, a film that for a while was largely forgotten or ignored.

    Well Roger almost made his debut as Bond for OHMSS but since he was doing The Saint at the time he couldnt.
  • And maybe it's just as well in that I always found '73 was an almost perfect time for a debut, in Live and Let Die, and furthermore, I wouldn't swap Lazenby with anyone for the other. I think a Moore debut for 007 in the 1960s would of been too premature, whether he was involved with The Saint or otherwise
  • Posts: 140
    I think I remember Rog himself once saying that he backed out of OHMSS in favor of The Persuaders because of production delays. Apparently, the original intent was to film in Cambodia, but the war in Vietnam spilled over the border.
  • I met Moore in a hotel a few years back. Classy gentleman.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    edited February 2013 Posts: 188
    Plus on a related note, If Lazenby stayed on as Bond supposedly DAF,LALD,MWTGG and TSWLM were gonna be his movies. And the Moore era probably wouldnt have happened

    So ive heard....
  • Posts: 140
    I've heard that the Lazer was offered a 10-picture deal, in other words, all the way through LTK. Imagine that.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    00Ed wrote:
    I've heard that the Lazer was offered a 10-picture deal, in other words, all the way through LTK. Imagine that.
    Let's not and say we did.
    :-&
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    edited February 2013 Posts: 188
    George Lazenby in LTK...He would have had a crap load of facelifts and makeup to play Bond
  • Posts: 140
    Thank God for George's agent, eh? The one who convinced him that Bond was already outdated.
  • jka12002jka12002 Banned
    Posts: 188
    Yet again, it could have been worse
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Roger Moore appreciation for the longest serving Bond.
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/71/something-of-a-must-with-me-ohmss-appreciation/p1
    Plenty of Lazenby love can be found in the link posted above.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 140
    Well, I wouldn't exactly call this stuff Lazenby "love."

    But sure, let's get back on topic.

    As many here know, Roger Moore was seriously considered for Dr. No, and Fleming himself apparently endorsed the idea, but Rog was unavailable due to his commitment to The Saint.

    I, for one think Rog could have pulled it off. He was a better actor than he is often given credit for. Granted, he created a characterization with which he was extremely comfortable when he played Simon Templar, and continued that characterization through his Bond films and many of his other later works. Nevertheless, in the early '60s, when he was a young and hungry actor, he could have delivered some terrific performances in the first few Bond films.

    The question is, could the Bond franchise have survived if Roger Moore had held the role from 1962 until 1985? And what would have become of Sean Connery?
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 344
    I don't think any actor could have carried such a demanding franchise for 23 years.

    We'll never know how Moore would have approached the role in the 1960s. If he had taken up the holster in 1962 instead of starring in The Saint, then it's fascinating to speculate on which direction he would have taken the character, and the angle the creative team would have leaned, without the bright glow of Simon Templar's halo fixed above their leading man's head in the public consciousness.

    I finally saw The Man Who Haunted Himself in its entirety for the first time last week and I was tremendously impressed at the way that Moore portrayed a tormented man crumbling in front of our eyes. The malevolent streak of villainy he also showed made me appreciate that somewhere, beneath that 'good guy' exterior, was one heck of a villain just waiting to come out. It's a shame he wasn't given more roles in that vein. That being said, his performances as James Bond were no where near as 'effortless' as he made them look.

    As his friend Sir Michael Caine said: 'If he makes it look easy; it's not I can assure you.'

  • Sir Roger Moore was fun to watch as James Bond.
  • Posts: 20
    Moore is my favourite Bond for a few reasons. One is that he has the class, he is without doubt the most posh Bond, not as rough as Connery or Craig. I love that he is more likely to use his wit than his fists. Also his (really rather bad) sense of humour which, being a fan of the BBC sitcoms of the 70s and 80s, I have a soft spot for. Also the fact that he is a very good guy off screen, being a UNICEF ambassador etc., you very rarely hear him say anything bad about anyone.

    I admit that a few of his movies were not that well written or produced (TMWTGG and Moonraker especially), but Roger being the class act he is, holds it all together. His best movie of the series, The Spy Who Loved Me, happens to be my favourite of all the Bond films too. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.