Hmm, good question. It would appear that his birth year was given as 1946 for many years (including his Bond era) but has more recently been retconned to 1944. As I said earlier, hmm...
Hmm, good question. It would appear that his birth year was given as 1946 for many years (including his Bond era) but has more recently been retconned to 1944. As I said earlier, hmm...
This conversation is definitely moving away from the question I posed in the thread title: was it a good thing that Roger Moore decided to stick around for maybe one or two Bond films, too many? I mean, "objectively speaking," was it a good idea that Sir Roger did what he did? Was it a smart move on Roger Moore's part to have been James Bond for twelve years, to the point where he could barely do the stunts himself anymore, and where he was a crusty old man OO7, hitting on gorgeous, youthful, Bond women young enough to be his daughters...?
If you feel uncomfortable talking about this, then I suppose we could talk about the possibility that Daniel Craig will most likely be in Sir Roger Moore's position (from the early 1980's) after his newly signed two-film contract is up. I mean, what if Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli had made the decision together, to have Daniel Craig become the second James Bond actor to reach Sean Connery's six "official" Bond film quota, or even match Roger's quota from May of 1985?
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
Listing to a local radio station's christmas quizz. I was happy to
hear them have a "Bond Themes" selection of questions.
( I got them all, as would any member of AJB B-) )
The funny thing was as the panel was made up of some local celebs etc.
They all had fond feelings for AVTAK. Several stating it was their favourite
Bond film.
So it might be amonst fans it doesn't rate very highly, but with the general
public it seems to be very popular.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Listing to a local radio station's christmas quizz. I was happy tohear them have a "Bond Themes" selection of questions. I got them all, as would any member of AJB the funny thing was as the panel was made up of some local celebs etc.They all had fond feelings for AVTAK. Several stating it was their favourite
Bond film. So it might be amonst fans it doesn't rate very highly, but with the generalpublic it seems to be very popular.
I'm just one of the few people who think there was a wasted opportunity to introduce a new James Bond character in the 1980's much sooner. And I personally believe that if Timothy Dalton had launched his Bond career in 1981 with For Your Eyes Only, he might have actually grown into the role over time. With FYEO there might have been some growing pains at first, as far as first starting out is concerned but once Timothy had gotten over that proverbial hump, who knows what might have happened!?
We'll never know for sure because Roger Moore fans got to see their favorite Bond on the silver screen for TWELVE YEARS, TWELVE YEARS!!!!!! X-(
I don't even know how long Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Robert Brown, Desmond Llewelyn, and Judi Dench were M, Moneypenny, and Q, respectively but Roger Moore was James Bond (the series protagonist) for twelve years.
As it is, Timothy Dalton was only James Bond for exactly one year, eleven months and fifteen days. (Assuming the original theatrical release dates on iTunes, for The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are correct. July 31, 1987 and July 14, 1989.)
Oh, wait a minute! It seems I was wrong. Sir Roger Moore, was only James Bond for exactly eleven years, ten months and twenty-six days. (Again, assuming that the original theatrical release dates on iTunes, for Live and Let Die and A View to a Kill are indeed, correct. June 27, 1973 and May 22, 1985.)
Roger was certainly Bond for NEARLY, twelve years, though. -{
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
I mean, think about it...If Timothy Dalton had actually done Roger's last three Bond films in the 1980's and gone on to do Licence to Kill in 1989, a lot of people would have looked back upon For Your Eyes Only and said, "James Bond is a hypocrite because in For Your Eyes Only he spoke of the Chinese saying, when you set out on revenge you must first dig two graves."
I can’t even remember him saying that, or how it connects to Dalton.
I mean, think about it...If Timothy Dalton had actually done Roger's last three Bond films in the 1980's and gone on to do Licence to Kill in 1989, a lot of people would have looked back upon For Your Eyes Only and said, "James Bond is a hypocrite because in For Your Eyes Only he spoke of the Chinese saying, when you set out on revenge you must first dig two graves."
I can’t even remember him saying that, or how it connects to Dalton.
I'm basically saying IF Timothy Dalton was in For Your Eyes Only instead of Roger Moore and if Timothy Dalton had said, "There's a Chinese saying, When you set out on revenge you must first dig two graves."
People might have noticed the fact that Timothy Dalton had gone on a revenge mission, eight years later. But of course this is a BIG "What If?" hypothetical situation that never happened in our world but may have happened in another world. If you believe in the concept of multiple universes with different planet Earths. -{
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
Comments
Hmm, good question. It would appear that his birth year was given as 1946 for many years (including his Bond era) but has more recently been retconned to 1944. As I said earlier, hmm...
This conversation is definitely moving away from the question I posed in the thread title: was it a good thing that Roger Moore decided to stick around for maybe one or two Bond films, too many? I mean, "objectively speaking," was it a good idea that Sir Roger did what he did? Was it a smart move on Roger Moore's part to have been James Bond for twelve years, to the point where he could barely do the stunts himself anymore, and where he was a crusty old man OO7, hitting on gorgeous, youthful, Bond women young enough to be his daughters...?
If you feel uncomfortable talking about this, then I suppose we could talk about the possibility that Daniel Craig will most likely be in Sir Roger Moore's position (from the early 1980's) after his newly signed two-film contract is up. I mean, what if Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli had made the decision together, to have Daniel Craig become the second James Bond actor to reach Sean Connery's six "official" Bond film quota, or even match Roger's quota from May of 1985?
hear them have a "Bond Themes" selection of questions.
( I got them all, as would any member of AJB B-) )
The funny thing was as the panel was made up of some local celebs etc.
They all had fond feelings for AVTAK. Several stating it was their favourite
Bond film.
So it might be amonst fans it doesn't rate very highly, but with the general
public it seems to be very popular.
I'm just one of the few people who think there was a wasted opportunity to introduce a new James Bond character in the 1980's much sooner. And I personally believe that if Timothy Dalton had launched his Bond career in 1981 with For Your Eyes Only, he might have actually grown into the role over time. With FYEO there might have been some growing pains at first, as far as first starting out is concerned but once Timothy had gotten over that proverbial hump, who knows what might have happened!?
We'll never know for sure because Roger Moore fans got to see their favorite Bond on the silver screen for TWELVE YEARS, TWELVE YEARS!!!!!! X-(
I don't even know how long Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, Robert Brown, Desmond Llewelyn, and Judi Dench were M, Moneypenny, and Q, respectively but Roger Moore was James Bond (the series protagonist) for twelve years.
As it is, Timothy Dalton was only James Bond for exactly one year, eleven months and fifteen days. (Assuming the original theatrical release dates on iTunes, for The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are correct. July 31, 1987 and July 14, 1989.)
Oh, wait a minute! It seems I was wrong. Sir Roger Moore, was only James Bond for exactly eleven years, ten months and twenty-six days. (Again, assuming that the original theatrical release dates on iTunes, for Live and Let Die and A View to a Kill are indeed, correct. June 27, 1973 and May 22, 1985.)
Roger was certainly Bond for NEARLY, twelve years, though. -{
I can’t even remember him saying that, or how it connects to Dalton.
I'm basically saying IF Timothy Dalton was in For Your Eyes Only instead of Roger Moore and if Timothy Dalton had said, "There's a Chinese saying, When you set out on revenge you must first dig two graves."
People might have noticed the fact that Timothy Dalton had gone on a revenge mission, eight years later. But of course this is a BIG "What If?" hypothetical situation that never happened in our world but may have happened in another world. If you believe in the concept of multiple universes with different planet Earths. -{