Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan?

mrbain007

Out of these two "lighter" actors, which one would you favour?

My vote would go to Brosnan.

Blackleiter

Pierce without question. He might have been a more "lightweight" Bond, but still he had more nuances to his portrayal than the generally weak Roger Moore.

Q and M

dont really think you can compare the two, different era, different movies, and also i dont think that brosnan was a lightweight bond. however he is not a heavyweight bond at all

thesecretagent

I don't really see Brosnan as "lighter". Some of his fights were believable and his weapon handling (except final scenes of TND) was very good. He had his darker moments too.

Blackleiter

I actually liked Brosnan's take on Bond quite a bit, and I didn't mean to suggest that he was "lightweight" in the sense of not seeming tough or believable as a Double-O. He had some pretty decent fight scenes, and I think he had a number of very effective "dark" moments as well. However, his Bond wasn't quite as serious or brooding as the Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig versions (and in my opinion that is generally good thing). That's the only comparison I was making.

thesecretagent wrote:

I don't really see Brosnan as "lighter". Some of his fights were believable and his weapon handling (except final scenes of TND) was very good. He had his darker moments too.

gizzer31

anyone got a mint pulsar p2 in ss for sale must be mint for 500 dollars shipped to uk

James Suzuki

For me, brosnan felt like an action hero-not james Bond, especially in DAD. fleming's Bond was not a man who had sex with every woman he passed, even though he liked woman, and the whole gadget thing was not put on so heavy in the books as in the movie. . Moore, even though he brought a lot of humor, he did feel kie bond (maybe not in moonraker). yes, Brosnan is better then Lazenbury, but he didn't feel like Bond, just another action hero, up there with Bourne.

Gassy Man

Say what one will, Moore was never "uneven" as Bond, as Brosnan was. To me, Brosnan should have just played the part with a lighter air . . . the attempts at making him as complex a Bond as, say, Daniel Craig's just didn't work for me because they couldn't settle on a tone for the movies that was consistent all the way through. And when he tried to play it more dramatically, it usually didn't work.

mrbain007

xboy614 wrote:

For me, brosnan felt like an action hero-not james Bond, especially in DAD. fleming's Bond was not a man who had sex with every woman he passed, even though he liked woman, and the whole gadget thing was not put on so heavy in the books as in the movie. . Moore, even though he brought a lot of humor, he did feel kie bond (maybe not in moonraker). yes, Brosnan is better then Lazenbury, but he didn't feel like Bond, just another action hero, up there with Bourne.

That's the exact problem I have with a certain Mr Craig. Especially in scenes like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXJiYV9K77Q

mrbain007

Gassy Man wrote:

Say what one will, Moore was never "uneven" as Bond, as Brosnan was. To me, Brosnan should have just played the part with a lighter air . . . the attempts at making him as complex a Bond as, say, Daniel Craig's just didn't work for me because they couldn't settle on a tone for the movies that was consistent all the way through. And when he tried to play it more dramatically, it usually didn't work.

I'm not sure about that to be honest, the Bond in LALD and MWTGG was a very different one to that of OP and AVTAK.

Thunderpussy

I think If you happened to Play Bond when they had a lighter touch, then your portrayal of Bond is going to be lighter.Just look at Connery in FRWL and compare it to DAF. Brosnan was lucky in that the films became a little less light in tone and became a little harder,I'm sure if Moore had of gotten the same scripts he would of done a similar job. But I prefer Brosnan in the fight scenes and do think he could on occasion give a cruel look, showing some of the Hidden violence Bond has underneith his venere of sophication.

mrbain007

But I prefer Brosnan in the fight scenes and do think he could on occasion give a cruel look, showing some of the Hidden violence Bond has underneith his venere of sophication.

That's exactly what I think aswell.

Blackleiter

I agree, too. But I disagree with the notion that Roger Moore could have pulled it off, even with the same scripts Brosnan had to work with. Moore tried the harder-edged approach a couple of times, most notably in LALD and FYEO (which was, in my opinion, his best Bond performance), but to me he just wasn't convincing. Not as a potentially menancing adversary, and certainly not as a highly-trained special agent skilled in combat.

mrbain007 wrote:

But I prefer Brosnan in the fight scenes and do think he could on occasion give a cruel look, showing some of the Hidden violence Bond has underneith his venere of sophication.

That's exactly what I think aswell.

Thunderpussy

To a certin extent I agree Blackleiter, But with Roger Moore I am slightly biased,as I grew up watching the man as a kid,So it's very hard for me to speak ill of one of my childhood heros. )

Blackleiter

Understood, my friend! We all have our favorites, which is why I chafe at any criticism of the great Sir Sean Connery's Bond. So I definitely get where you're coming from.

Thunderpussy wrote:

To a certin extent I agree Blackleiter, But with Roger Moore I am slightly biased,as I grew up watching the man as a kid,So it's very hard for me to speak ill of one of my childhood heros. )

Thunderpussy

My feelings on Connery is HE is the Origin of the species,we can only compare the actors who followed him. ( but if forced to, I go with Dalton)

ke02eww

To be a fair comparison you should compare RMs first four with brozza...

LALD
TMWTGG
TSWLM
Moonraker

For me the first three are some of the best bonds and easily comparable to brozzas first three

They both were dealt a sci-fi debacle in their fourth....

Bottom line, on this basis it's a tough choice....for their time they were both good bonds in my book.

Gassy Man

mrbain007 wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Say what one will, Moore was never "uneven" as Bond, as Brosnan was. To me, Brosnan should have just played the part with a lighter air . . . the attempts at making him as complex a Bond as, say, Daniel Craig's just didn't work for me because they couldn't settle on a tone for the movies that was consistent all the way through. And when he tried to play it more dramatically, it usually didn't work.

I'm not sure about that to be honest, the Bond in LALD and MWTGG was a very different one to that of OP and AVTAK.

But he was never uneven in the same movie . . . Brosnan could go from being dark in one moment to being absolutely flip in the next to biting some woman on the lip because he thought that was sexy . . . it came across less as multiple facets of a complex man and more as he just wasn't sure how he was supposed to be playing the part.

I can accept with Moore that Bond changed somewhat over time given that the examples you suggest chronologically follow such a pattern.

Thunderpussy

The bitting thing Brosnan did, I always felt was odd,as I never believed the sex scenes where that passionate. Lets face it Bond is hardly Nine and a half weeks. )

mrbain007

I think Brosnan could be quite passionate and tbh I never really had a problem with the shoulder biting scene. In fact I think it works a bit better than DC's finger sucking.

Apart from TND when else did Brosnan do that shoulder-biting thing?

Thunderpussy

I think he Bit Jinx in DAD, Mabey he was trying out for the Twlight movies. ) and I'd forgotten about the Finger sucking,Reminds me of The finger sucking gag in "The naked gun"

mrbain007

Thunderpussy wrote:

I think he Bit Jinx in DAD, Mabey he was trying out for the Twlight movies. ) and I'd forgotten about the Finger sucking,Reminds me of The finger sucking gag in "The naked gun"

But the Naked Gun was meant to be funny ("I've got 9 more")

I suppose I can understand the biting in DAD too. He'd been tortured for 14 months so if you were having a night of wild sex (esp with someone like Halle Berry) you're going to be passionate

DangerMouse

mrbain007 wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

I think he Bit Jinx in DAD, Mabey he was trying out for the Twlight movies. ) and I'd forgotten about the Finger sucking,Reminds me of The finger sucking gag in "The naked gun"

But the Naked Gun was meant to be funny ("I've got 9 more")

I suppose I can understand the biting in DAD too. He'd been tortured for 14 months so if you were having a night of wild sex (esp with someone like Halle Berry) you're going to be passionate

And what could've made his 14 months of torture more realistic is if he also suffered from nightmarish visions of his time in captivity.

GoldenEye85

Pierce Brosnan, definitely. The very first Bond movie I ever saw was GoldenEye. Not to say Roger Moore is a bad Bond, in my opinion that goes to Lazenby. I would rather watch both Dalton films five times each then Lazenby's film. Except him, I have at least one favorite from each person that has been Bond.

Sean Connery: Goldfinger
Roger Moore: it's a three way tie between Live and Let Die, Golden Gun and View to a Kill
Timothy Dalton: License to Kill
Pierce Brosnan: GoldenEye (but I liked his other three as well)
Daniel Craig: Casino Royale.

Brosnan is perfect for this role, at least for the movies he did. he has the suave, humor when needed, but can kick your a@@ when needed, just watch his reaction when he is holding the gun to Renard's head in the World is Not Enough, you can see him getting ticked off. Maybe not now, but from 1995 to 2002 he was it for the role.

Sidewinder

Brosnan, period. Moore is my least favorite Bond, because he has not the looks and added too much humor.

Mister Greene

Moore, when i was a kid he was the first Bond I knew and if I can write this correctly taught me alot about how a man is suppose to act with his mannerisms and charisma. so while SC is still my favorite, I owe a lot to RM.

DouglasJ

Moore for me. This time last year I would have dismissed them both - I prefer my dark and serious Bond. But having rewatched their films recently, I find Moore over-flowing with charm. That makes his movies very watchable to me.

He also makes the extra-cheesy one-liners work in a way that, in my opinion, Brosnan never did.

mooney

I agree Brosnan was a better actor..... but Moore was a better star, that was the era he came from and fitted bond. You have to apply different measurements to these guys. There might never have been any more bonds without Moore's influence and pulling power one could argue.

hegottheboot

Brosnan was never allowed to really do much beyond the basic confines of the general story. He could have acted the hell out of the part if allowed. (see Tailor of Panama for example) We see flashes of this in the darker moments of his tenure.
Moore played the role according to how he felt at the time and according to what direction the team wanted. He is the consummate gentleman adventure hero. Able to do both the light and dark aspects.