Do Roger-Haters Hate Too Much?
bigzilcho
Toronto, ONPosts: 245MI6 Agent
Perhaps the most distressing thing I have come across in this forum (and other Bond sites) is the absolutely vicious comments that have been made about Roger.
Fellow, Bond-fans, please do not misunderstand my intentions here: I am NOT in favor of curtailing freedom of expression, all opinions are valid and important. But, truth be told, I am SICK and TIRED of the cheap shots concerning Roger's age and, particularly, his manhood.
Have we lost our sense of good manners?
Criticizing Roger's portrayal of Bond is, of course, open season, but I find the criticism goes into a highly personal nature and, frankly, it is both ugly and unseemly for supposedly mature and sophisticated Bond-fans to have to resort to the kind of poisonous insults that have been thrown around about the man.
Its called courtesy and respect for those Roger-Haters who cannot understand the distinction between honest criticism and outright contempt.
Am I protesting too much? Perhaps. Every Bond has had his share of negative criticism. That goes with the territory of being Bond.
But with Roger, its different and it always has been. Dislike Roger as 007? Fine. But spare us the ugly opinions about Roger as a man. Because ultimately, those comments reflect more on the person making the comments.
Roger is on record about the fact that he is aware of his status on the Internet. Can you imagine the kind of thick skin the man must have developed over the years to protect himself? And, instead of being bitter, he comes across as the happiest guy on the earth. Bravo to Sir Roger!
Look, this is not a vendetta against Roger-Haters. As an old Connery man, myself, it took a long time for me to appreciate and treasure Roger's tenure as Bond. But I did, and now Roger's 007 is old-school fun (with a capital F) in my books.
What triggered my anger is an article I read at the MI6 Bond site. The article is written by a spectacular HACK of a writer named Boris Johnson for The Daily Telegraph. Let me repeat it for the cheap seats: HACK.
Just check out the snivelling tone of the piece as he cackles merrily at the "superbly bad FYEO" (?!?!?!?) and completely dismisses and, in turn, belittles and humiliates Roger.
It is a supremely lazy article written with same sense of smugness about Roger that I have been reading since the 70's. It is both boring and infuriating and, most importantly, completely derivative. Do Roger-Haters plagiarize each other's writings? (And thoughts, while we're at it?)
The same insults and barbs have been thrown Roger's way since 1973. An insult and a criticism are two different reactions the last time I checked. And there are a handful of Roger-Haters that are fair and even-handed but, unfortunately the vast majority of negative comments about Roger cross the line into, quite frankly, a grey area of ugliness and bile.
Roger as Bond and Roger as a man deserves a lot more respect than has been given to him over the years by certain members.
I'm standing on my Roger soap-box right now. Anyone is free to take a kick at the box beneath my feet. In fact, I relish the notion of it. Because, you see, at the end of the day Roger-Haters feel they can say the vilest things about gool ol' Roger and everyone will nod their head in agreement.
Well, times-are-a-changing.
All hail Sir Roger!
A classy guy and a great 007.
Insults need not apply.
"But James, I need you."
"So does England."
Fellow, Bond-fans, please do not misunderstand my intentions here: I am NOT in favor of curtailing freedom of expression, all opinions are valid and important. But, truth be told, I am SICK and TIRED of the cheap shots concerning Roger's age and, particularly, his manhood.
Have we lost our sense of good manners?
Criticizing Roger's portrayal of Bond is, of course, open season, but I find the criticism goes into a highly personal nature and, frankly, it is both ugly and unseemly for supposedly mature and sophisticated Bond-fans to have to resort to the kind of poisonous insults that have been thrown around about the man.
Its called courtesy and respect for those Roger-Haters who cannot understand the distinction between honest criticism and outright contempt.
Am I protesting too much? Perhaps. Every Bond has had his share of negative criticism. That goes with the territory of being Bond.
But with Roger, its different and it always has been. Dislike Roger as 007? Fine. But spare us the ugly opinions about Roger as a man. Because ultimately, those comments reflect more on the person making the comments.
Roger is on record about the fact that he is aware of his status on the Internet. Can you imagine the kind of thick skin the man must have developed over the years to protect himself? And, instead of being bitter, he comes across as the happiest guy on the earth. Bravo to Sir Roger!
Look, this is not a vendetta against Roger-Haters. As an old Connery man, myself, it took a long time for me to appreciate and treasure Roger's tenure as Bond. But I did, and now Roger's 007 is old-school fun (with a capital F) in my books.
What triggered my anger is an article I read at the MI6 Bond site. The article is written by a spectacular HACK of a writer named Boris Johnson for The Daily Telegraph. Let me repeat it for the cheap seats: HACK.
Just check out the snivelling tone of the piece as he cackles merrily at the "superbly bad FYEO" (?!?!?!?) and completely dismisses and, in turn, belittles and humiliates Roger.
It is a supremely lazy article written with same sense of smugness about Roger that I have been reading since the 70's. It is both boring and infuriating and, most importantly, completely derivative. Do Roger-Haters plagiarize each other's writings? (And thoughts, while we're at it?)
The same insults and barbs have been thrown Roger's way since 1973. An insult and a criticism are two different reactions the last time I checked. And there are a handful of Roger-Haters that are fair and even-handed but, unfortunately the vast majority of negative comments about Roger cross the line into, quite frankly, a grey area of ugliness and bile.
Roger as Bond and Roger as a man deserves a lot more respect than has been given to him over the years by certain members.
I'm standing on my Roger soap-box right now. Anyone is free to take a kick at the box beneath my feet. In fact, I relish the notion of it. Because, you see, at the end of the day Roger-Haters feel they can say the vilest things about gool ol' Roger and everyone will nod their head in agreement.
Well, times-are-a-changing.
All hail Sir Roger!
A classy guy and a great 007.
Insults need not apply.
"But James, I need you."
"So does England."
Comments
I think that Roger the man is a superb guy -{
As an actor he is also, Very good films, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only being some of my favourites. I am inspired by his work in acting and Unicef. I would love to move my brow like that ! I think his Bond brought a new style to Bond, for the laughs, which is a brilliant thing. His our some of the classic Bond films.
Is anyone a member on his site ?
www.roger-moore.com
Where as Roger I think knowing this did his own take on the part, and brought in even bigger audiances for the movies,If people say some of his films were weak it's not all his fault it takes many talents to get a movie made, why should he take all the flack for a weak script, lazy direction,or mis-casting etc.
He was the right Bond for the right era, yes he did stay a bit too long in the role but this i think is because Sean did NSNA making 7 so Roger Did AVTAK to equal him, and for 7 movies no body did it better than Roger.:007)
I think he might also be the Mayor of London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/4789108/How-exactly-will-Roger-Moores-knees-corrupt-my-children.html
It is indeed that Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and sworn enemy of Scotsmen.
Mayor of London?!?!?
Well, just goes to show you, all politicians are suspect in some way.
Come to think of it, how could the mayor of London slag one of its favorite sons so harshly?
Thats like a President insulting John Wayne. Just not done, old boy.
Impeachment proceedings are underway as we speak.
Citizens of London: take a close look at the man who you've elected as your leader. Any man who would publicly insult good ol' Roger and, in turn, Bond, deserves the old heave-ho...and fast!
(By the way, anybody check out the history of this Boris guy? Any Spectre /Quantum connections?)
One word......RECOUNT!
"All those feathers and he still can't fly."
I love the film to death but, c'mon, now. It's an editorial.
I'm more distressed with parents not letting their 11 year olds near Bond then over Johnson.
Good point, Hardyboy and well put. Perhaps I am overstating my case but it is a matter of interpretation. I feel that Roger does get love from the fans, no doubt about it, but no other Bond recieves as much vitriol as he does.
And it is the degree of animosity I am addressing here. Does any other Bond have to suffer the slings and arrows that Roger goes through? I don't think so.
Its true, all the Bonds have been criticized. But with Roger the criticism has always been a bit too personal to my taste, a bit too rushed to dismiss the man himself.
Like I said, its about perception. In your eyes, Hardyboy, Roger and every Bond is criticized equally. Well, I respectfully disagree with you on this point. No one (not George, Pierce or Craig) has EVER had to endure the kind of personal insults thrown Roger's way.
Once again, its a question of interpretation.
Cheers.
"Spend the money quickly, Mr. Bond."
"I intend to, Kamal Khan."
But bigzilcho is right; Moore has got fashionable abuse much like Ringo in The Beatles. I mean, Ringo is a crap drummer, except all the Beatles songs are great so which song do you listen to thinking, oh this would be brilliant if only Ringo weren't drumming?
In the UK we do have that mickey taking thing going on ad infinitum, though I would add that Moore is very self deprecating so there's a danger of people taking you at your own estimation.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As a person who has seen Moore's efforts in the series, I am entitled to dislike them and to voice my occasional opinion as to his inability to portray the character in a manner that I like.
I can admire his charitable work but even that to some the degree, has the purpose of keeping his name before the public. I don't mean his UNICEF work, but his speaking out about the goose liver industry (Sorry, I don't spell French). Celebrities often chime in on issues, not because they are vital, but because it's positive publicity. I live in Chicago, and if you want to see the celebrity machine in overdrive, just look at the Oprah Winfrey industry that saturates this city.
If I had opportunity to meet the man, I would treat with the same respect I would treat anyone. But since his profession was an actor and he provided a product, I and every other person here have the right to criticize just how lousy he was as Bond, if I choose. And I really doubt that it means anything to RM.
I think it's great that people enjoy Moore's work. He is lucky to have such a loyal and vocal fanbase. But just as you don't like the venom that man receives, I don't like the sugar-coating. I try to limit my reviews of Mr. Moore to one a month, as I can only stand so much negativity, even if it's coming from me. And in the end it boils down to a difference of opinion and that's all it ever will be.
I always state it the same way: He's my least favourite Bond---and he probably always will be, as I shudder to think what would be necessary to unseat him from this dubious honour
Methinks his defenders doth protest too much.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'd argue that obviously Pete Best was the crap drummer :v
Richard Starkey, while surely not a brilliant percussionist on the scale of a Keith Moon or a John Bonham, was technically very sound, and surely added much to the mix of what the Beatles were as a sum of their parts. Being called the least talented member of that foursome isn't really a slag, IMNO.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
On the whole with the exception of the first three films and the last two, EON has made a mess of the oo7 adventures.
Just my opinion.
{:)
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
And Liverpudlians. There is a four letter word i would use to describe him but I shall not utter it here
Does it rhyme with Irma Bunt?
But what I do hate, is that when you tell people that you like James Bond, they then come up with a reference to something stupid from the Roger Moore era.
Their point then being that James Bond is silly and that by liking that, so are you.
Annoys the hell out of me.X-(
Thats the one! {[]
For example, in his first Bond film, LALD, he feels totally out of place in the bars and streets of New Orleans and some of the tribal scenes make him look like a member of the royal family got dumped in a forest and are forced to make peace with the locals. Had he been introduced into the context slower it may not have look so out of place.
Another instance is in Octopussy. One word:
Clown.
http://apbateman.com
Roger Moore's turn as the circus clown in OPY is, in my view, one of the highlights of OPY - because it engages all the complexities of the traditional clown. A traditional clown isn't simply a figure of fun to be laughed at; there's a sadness and a pathos there, too. This clown frowns with desparation and frustration because no one seems to be taking him seriously when he warns about the bomb; I find that poignant.
Has anyone ever thought, like me, that in the pre-credits sequence of TLD the first of the Double-Os to be written out in Gibraltar - paintballed by the SAS soldier ("You're out of it, chum!") - looks a little like Roger Moore? It's as if this paintball send-off, before the violence of the shootings, symbolically clears the way of Moore-like antics so that the new, harder-edged Bond can take centre stage... it's a significant transitional moment.
Having said that, I've recently watched all the Moore Bond films again - most of them in the cinema - and it strikes me that there's often a dramatic depth and seriousness to Moore's performance, even in the films which are typically dismissed as overly comic, such as 'Moonraker'. Also, it must have been a considerable acting challenge for Roger, across his tenure, to deal with and accommodate so many different artistic 'takes' on his Bond by the various writers and directors: the offbeat humour coupled with occasional nastiness in the Hamilton / Mankiewicz films; the broad comedy, self-reflexivity and high concepts of the Gilbert / Wood romps; the odd way in which Glen / Wilson combined elements from both these previous phases with passages of more human, grittier realism... all carried off with aplomb. I'd go so far as to suggest that following on from Connery to become the definitive Bond of the 70s and then punching a way forward for the franchise, into the naff 80s, would have been, if anything, a tougher acting challenge than either refreshing Bond in the Britpop 90s or rebooting the character for the angst-ridden noughties...
About the clown thing in "Octopussy." I rather enjoyed that myself. I thought his frustration in that scene was very realistic, and that he gets frustrated enough to begin cursing is good with me.
"We're just too different... I mean, you're dead...." - Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride'
Here's the latest from Sir Roger:
http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/interviews/article.html?Roger_Moore:_Ill_be_the_first_Bond_to_kick_the_bucket&in_article_id=668001&in_page_id=11
I really do love this guy.* How can you not?
*Which does not change the fact that he did, at least, two films too many...more likely three or four... See him in The Wild Geese...if only he'd played Bond like that...!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM