Do you think the Roger Moore, Bond films quote unquote, "work"?

GothamKnight1902

I think Moore's Bond films work as clown shoes entertainment. If you're looking for a really funny Bond parody that doesn't take itself seriously at all, then look no further than Roger Moore's entire James Bond film career. Even though Roger or "Sir Roger," had two Bond films that were more on the quote unquote, "serious side," those two Bond films that played it straight sort of suffered, because in my humble opinion Roger Moore is not very good at sounding serious and somber. It's part of the reason why I cannot watch any of the Moore era Bond films and take them seriously. I just do not like Roger Moore's voice. In my opinion Roger does not sound like a "tough and sophisticated," secret agent which is how Bond should speak......I think Roger sounds more like Alfred Pennyworth from Batman: The Animated Series as opposed to James Bond.

Anyway um, I'm not sure how anybody could like the Roger Moore films because as I said they're clown shoes entertainment, they're not thrillers by any stretch of the imagination. I saw Ben Affleck's "The Town" and that was more of a thriller than For Your Eyes Only.

Mister Greene

I think Moore's adaptation of Bond was more of a changing of the times and style of the world, at the time people wanted to be entertained in a much different way and the more serious, darker Bond would not of played well to the audiences. We all knew that it was make believe and enjoyed the movies for what they were. So I think Sir Roger deserves credit for keeping the franchise going thru the seventies and, so while I personally prefer SC over the rest I appreciate the Moore era movies(except Moonraker).

the only thing I cant understand is why you keep posting things trying to provoke people, it seems from your posts you have some issues.

GothamKnight1902

Mister Greene wrote:

The only thing I cant understand is why you keep posting things trying to provoke people, it seems from your posts you have some issues.

I'm not trying to provoke anyone. You see in America we're allowed to speak our minds on just about anything. It's called Freedom of Speech. And I'm not really trying to belittle people for liking Roger Moore, I'm just saying that I can't understand how people could like him. I don't have anything against the guy personally I just think he was a horrible James Bond and I know it's debatable but so is the debate on whether Val Kilmer, George Clooney and Michael Keaton were horrible Batmen or not. Anyway while Roger was physically tough, he just didn't sound tough and sophisticated nor he could sound serious and somber when he had to. Sean Connery could sound serious and while I know Connery could never sound somber at least he was able to sound tough and sophisticated at the same time.

Ricardo C.

GK, it's pretty obvious that you are trying to provoke people here with these topics. I don't want to call you a troll but you are treading those waters.

GothamKnight1902

Ricardo C. wrote:

GK, it's pretty obvious that you are trying to provoke people here with these topics. I don't want to call you a troll but you are treading those waters.

I'm just trying to figure out why people like Roger Moore's Bond so much. I know I sound like a troll by creating these topics but for the life of me I just can't understand why. I know explained why I dislike Roger and it kind of makes sense but there's another reason why I dislike him and I can't explain it. It's like trying to explain why I dislike beer. My older brothers always try to get me to like beer by making me drink it and I just hate it. I hate the way it tastes. And when I try it to explain to them, they just can't wrap their heads around it.

Mister Greene

Well whatever you are trying to do isn't working with your tone. you are very confrontational and I understand about the whole "freedom of speech" point you make, but you seem unable to grasp the fact that you are provoking people. So with that being said grow up and stop trying to pick fights with people Batman

jimmybondi

where is the "Ignore button", when you need one... |)

GothamKnight1902

Mister Greene wrote:

Well whatever you are trying to do isn't working with your tone. you are very confrontational.

You keep saying that you don't like my tone but you can't really hear my actual tone can you? You're just imagining it. You think I need to grow up but you can't hear my actual speaking voice can you? You never met me in person so you'd never know how deep and monotonous my voice sounds or boomingly loud it can get. Also why are you calling me Batman? Does my username say Batman? No it says GothamKnight. You tell me to grow up and yet you call me Batman in the same sentence....That's childish and contradictory. And why are you getting so worked up about me ripping on Roger Moore? Does Roger care about some nobody from Minnesota who dislikes his Bond films? No. Sir Roger is living the high life in one of the fanciest pads in London England or wherever.

I know you like Roger Moore and you're probably feeling annoyed because you feel like you shouldn't have to justify your reasons for liking him. But I'm not here to challenge you. I'm just here to complain about the time EON was looking for a Sean Connery surrogate and Roger Moore was the best they could do.

Thunderpussy

Others may Hate Sir Roger and his stint as 007, I on the other hand love his Bond Films. I grew up watching "The Saint " and his many other TV shows and am Convinced that he Brought a large following to the series, Many like me had never heard of Bond went along because LALD looked a great movie and it stared Roger Moore. Of course when you get into Bond you realise His portrail of Bond is much lighter and more played for humor,But this was a decision of the production company to go for a more family friendly approach.Bad Bond films arn't just the fault of the Lead actor, you have to add in Bad Directors, Crazy editors or even camerman who appear to de doing a version of riverdance when recording action sequences. )

thesecretagent

GothamKnight1902 wrote:

Mister Greene wrote:

The only thing I cant understand is why you keep posting things trying to provoke people, it seems from your posts you have some issues.

I'm not trying to provoke anyone. You see in America we're allowed to speak our minds on just about anything. It's called Freedom of Speech. And I'm not really trying to belittle people for liking Roger Moore, I'm just saying that I can't understand how people could like him. I don't have anything against the guy personally I just think he was a horrible James Bond and I know it's debatable but so is the debate on whether Val Kilmer, George Clooney and Michael Keaton were horrible Batmen or not. Anyway while Roger was physically tough, he just didn't sound tough and sophisticated nor he could sound serious and somber when he had to. Sean Connery could sound serious and while I know Connery could never sound somber at least he was able to sound tough and sophisticated at the same time.

You say that in America you speak your minds and that you have freedom of speech, and yet you contradict this by saying you can't understand anyone for liking Roger Moore... You've already proved you can't see more than one side to an argument. People like what they like, and that's it. I find super hero/comic book films are usually viewed by people with homoerotic tendancies with inferiority complexes, unable to adapt to the real world around them. You see, we can't all like the same things...

Napoleon Plural

Well, to make this a bit more neutral, it has to be said that Moore's English gentleman style is out of fashion these days, so may be hard to fathom. However, it follows the tradition of Ronald Colman and David Niven (who both played Raffles, the gentleman thief) and I guess Hugh Grant is a similar type. Grant would have made a decent Simon Templar in a movie franchise imo, going from the 1930s to 1950s.

The point of this type of actor is they rarely sound serious or sombre, it's all about 'keeping the circus going inside your head' as Niven put it. It's the sheer class of being unruffled, upbeat in spite of everything.

Thunderpussy

Well said NP,Keep up the stiff upper lip.David Niven despite his easy going manner was during the war a "hard ass Commando" as the youth of today would say.So mixing skill and daring with the exterior of an English Gentleman. After all isin't that the point of Bond He's been to the right schools,clubs etc. He knows the right wines and has all the manners of a Public Schoolboy,But underneith it all he's a B*****d,Coldly killing a guy then making a lighthearted remark after,Kind of like Knocking a guy off a roof and quipping "What a helpful Chap" now thats Cold.

jonnybond78

One man's meet is another man's poison etc etc etc.

Love him or hate him, Moore's mass apeal in his respective era cannot be denied. If You look at his box office performance from LALD through to FYEO, (with the exception of TMWTHGG), only Connery in the mid 60s performed better. Keep in mind that the mid 60s was the absolute peak of the Bond and espionage phenomenom. And also when i highlight box office performance, you have to take into account inflation. (i found a site with all the Bond films box office takings adjusted to reflect 2002 prices.

I guess Moore will allways be popular with casual fans, looking for light-hearted entertainment and action. Maybe less popular with Bond purists. I personally love the Moore era, and hate OHMSS. But its all a matter of opinion, aint it!!!!

mrbain007

I love Roger Moore as Bond (he probably comes 3rd after Brosnan and Connery) although I admit he's not the "Ian Fleming" Bond as I never pictured him when reading the novels. Nonetheless he has charm and although some of the jokes are rather cheesey there is still something likeable about him. He is a man of class and has that old-fashioned public schoolboy heir to him. It was also thanks to Rog that the series continued long after Connery.

One thing I do think however is that a Bond like Moore would not work in todays climate. People want it more "serious". That may be either good or bad thing but its the truth. I think Sir Rog is modest enough to admit that himself.

mrbain007

"I just do not like Roger Moore's voice"

"...nor he could sound serious and somber when he had to".

Rog has a wonderful voice. I could listen to him talk for hours. In fact a few years ago he was reading Tommy Atkins by Kipling on a UK show. Quite moving stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNMHOc9xfKQ

Mister Greene

Sir Roger is not my favorite but I think he was good in the movies and direction they were taking Bond in. with that being said I beleive he deserves alot of credit for keeping the franchise alive and if I remember right I believe every Bond movie he made made more than the previous so he must have been doing something right

James Suzuki

i'm the same as mister greene, i like dalton better

RJJB

None of Moore's films "work" for me. I've seen them all numerous times, but will never watch any of them again. The nice thing about this long running series is that with the exception of CR/QOS no movie is dependent on the others, so jettisoning the ones you dislike is possible with missing anything when you do. If Moore were playing a British agent with a different name, his movies would have tanked. He merely slipped into an existing role and took it down several notches to meet his so called talents. Moore needed Bond, far more than Bond needed Moore.

jonnybond78

RJJB wrote:

None of Moore's films "work" for me. I've seen them all numerous times, but will never watch any of them again. The nice thing about this long running series is that with the exception of CR/QOS no movie is dependent on the others, so jettisoning the ones you dislike is possible with missing anything when you do. If Moore were playing a British agent with a different name, his movies would have tanked. He merely slipped into an existing role and took it down several notches to meet his so called talents. Moore needed Bond, far more than Bond needed Moore.

jonnybond78

I think Bond did need Moore in the 70s and early 80s. He was the the perfect candidate for the part. And it is widely acknowledged that Moore saved the franchise, that was on life support in the early 70s. The Spy Who Loved Me, set new standards for the Bond franchise. And i dont think any other actor could have bettered Moore in this particular film.

As far as taking the role down several notches, Moore's box office clout is bettered only by Connery in the mid 60s. Based on admissions (cinema ticket sales). LALD, TSWLM and MR, outsold any Bond fim by Dalton, Lazenby, Brosnan and Craig.

I appreciate and respect your opinion about Moore. But he defined bond for a generation and was exceptionally popular with the masses.

Barbel

jonnybond78 wrote:

Moore defined bond for a generation and was exceptionally popular with the masses.

Exactly. He was the right man for the job at the time. I lived through the Moore period; it was possible to dislike his interpretation (and the scripts), but impossible to dislike him! Thoroughly professional and charming, and most importantly accepted by audiences the world over.

mrbain007

jonnybond78 wrote:

I think Bond did need Moore in the 70s and early 80s. He was the the perfect candidate for the part. And it is widely acknowledged that Moore saved the franchise, that was on life support in the early 70s. The Spy Who Loved Me, set new standards for the Bond franchise. And i dont think any other actor could have bettered Moore in this particular film.

As far as taking the role down several notches, Moore's box office clout is bettered only by Connery in the mid 60s. Based on admissions (cinema ticket sales). LALD, TSWLM and MR, outsold any Bond fim by Dalton, Lazenby, Brosnan and Craig.

I appreciate and respect your opinion about Moore. But he defined bond for a generation and was exceptionally popular with the masses.

I agree with you Johnnybond. Its been firmly established that Moore solidly succeeded Connery, something that people thought couldn't be done (especially after the Lazenby issue), and carried the films for another 12 years. Yes, by todays standards some of them are silly but for the time they worked and ensured Bond's survival.

Would they work today? Probably not. However IMO they are still fun to watch if you are looking for a "traditional" Bond adventure.

In regard to Roger himself, yes he is not as "tough" looking as Craig or Connery but he still has the look of a gentleman (similar to David Niven), which I think Fleming would have appreciated

mrbain007

Plus I think Rog is the one who continues to embrace the character the most. He was at a function I went to to mark 100 years since Ian Fleming's birth at the London Palladium and I also went to a talk and book-signing (during which Bond was brought up several times).

I've got the impression all the others want to distance themselves from Bond to a certain degree. Even Daniel Craig.

Loeffelholz

Barbel wrote:

...I lived through the Moore period; it was possible to dislike his interpretation (and the scripts), but impossible to dislike him! Thoroughly professional and charming, and most importantly accepted by audiences the world over.

Well said! {[] His was my least favourite Bond by a country mile...but I'm a fan of Roger Moore. And he did save the franchise. IMO, he simply made (at least) two films too many. Long life and good health to Sir Roger! -{

thesecretagent

I'm a smug git, because I actually like all the Bond actors and enjoy all the films on different levels, depending on my mood. My least favourite is Moonraker, but hey, if it's on the tv I'll kick back and watch... Oh to be me.

Barbel

mrbain007 wrote:

I've got the impression all the others want to distance themselves from Bond to a certain degree. Even Daniel Craig.

Good point- Sir Rog is the only one who seems to have enjoyed his reign as 007 and looks back on it fondly. Connery, Lazenby and Brosnan all had bitterness with the producers (Brosnan seems to have enjoyed his time as Bond and communicated that, but his time ended in squabbles); Dalton didn't but never seemed to be having a good time; Craig... not yet... but who knows?

PS {[] Loeff

Donald Grant

I think the early Moore outings worked. When I say early, I mean the first three, LALD, TMWTGG and TSWLM. When I saw LALD after Connery's return in DAF, I thought that's not Connery but was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked LALD. When Moore returned in TMWTGG, I liked it very much too. Same thing with TSWLM. I loved it and remember saying out loud in the theatre, "parachute" before it opened in the pre-credit sequence. I just knew it would happen. Today, these are still my favorite Moore/Bond outings. When Moonraker came out I remember seeing the Glastron hang glider boat at a local mall and getting two free posters with the Dan Gouzee "Blasting Off This Summer Artwork". I was very excited about the prospect of the new movie. But after seeing it I was less than impressed with it. After that I think the Moore Bond movies went down hill. Still, Moore kept the franchise alive, and I know I kept goin back. I think Bond movies are like that old saying about sex, "even when it's bad it's pretty good".

DG

Loeffelholz

Pizza, as well... ) With you 100%, DG -{

mrbain007

My verdict on the Roger Moore era:

LALD - Fun if a little silly. Gotta gasp at that crocodile jump everytime. Plus classic theme song by PM.

MWTGG - One of the weakest of the series, certainly the worst in the Moore era. Looks tired and uninspired despite the presence of Moore and Christopher Lee.

TSWLM - Classic Bond, one of the best in the series. Great theme song, great PTS, great villains.

MR - Silly but still has some good bits (the centrefuge sequence and PTS). Drax is a good villain but Jaws falling in love? Piff

FYEO - Moore's 2nd best after TSWLM. Gimmiky elements stripped and the result is a rather effective thriller.

OP - Not bad. Once again there are some silly moments (the tarzan yell) but also some good ones (the clown sequence never bothered me as the crucial moment was played completely straight).

AVTAK - I have a soft spot for this film although its extremely flawed. Would probably rank it 3rd in Moore's films. Great villain, great score some excellent action scenes (as well as some dodgy ones).

Donald Grant

mrbain007 wrote:

MWTGG - One of the weakest of the series, certainly the worst in the Moore era. Looks tired and uninspired despite the presence of Moore and Christopher Lee.

Yes, a lot of people think that for some reason. It seems to be conventional wisdom that I've heard over and over again. I'm afraid I can't agree. To me, Moonraker was the one that "jumped the shark". I mean fantastic Bond is o.K., but Moonraker just became silly.

DG