Sadly much as I love Sir Roger. :x ( grew up watching the man )
And love him as the saint, Lord Brett Sinclair, etc. He'll always be
Bottom of my list of actors for playing Bond. ( if that makes sense ) )
Perhaps he was the right man at the time, to keep the franchise going
But his portrayal of 007 bears no connection with the Bond of the books.
Yet, when someone else makes these same points, I can't help rush to
His defence and point out all the good things he's done. ) we Bond fans
Can be pretty mixed up ! )
Perhaps he was the right man at the time, to keep the franchise going
He was, no doubt in my mind. Who could have been? John Gavin? they would have killed the franchise there and then. They were wise (Cubby was, Saltzman didn't want Moore) to cast him. Well known to audiences but very different from Connery.
But his portrayal of 007 bears no connection with the Bond of the books.
When they tried (LALD and TMWTGG still have some Connery-esque scenes) it felt forced with Moore.
Your two points together make the whole picture: audiences needed at that point a new 007 with no connection with the Bond of the books. That was Connery, and they couldn't have Connery (they tried with Lazenby and failed).
Comments
Even I can agree with that!
Very well said. -{
He was, no doubt in my mind. Who could have been? John Gavin? they would have killed the franchise there and then. They were wise (Cubby was, Saltzman didn't want Moore) to cast him. Well known to audiences but very different from Connery.
When they tried (LALD and TMWTGG still have some Connery-esque scenes) it felt forced with Moore.
Your two points together make the whole picture: audiences needed at that point a new 007 with no connection with the Bond of the books. That was Connery, and they couldn't have Connery (they tried with Lazenby and failed).