Why do non fans seem to hate the Moore era?

MilleniumForce · August 2016

I thought this, as I just read a comment about someone watching all the Bond films, and saying that this person is dreading to get to the Moore era and how the worst is still to come. And this isn't rare; a lot of the time I've read comments about how the Moore films are the worst Bond films, except for TSWLM. But why? I was quite surprised when I first joined this site how many fans actually highly regard some of the Moore films, with even Moonraker getting a decent bit of love. So why do non Bond fans hate the Moore films? If anything, shouldn't it be the other way around, due to how different Roger Moore's Bond is to Fleming's?

walther p99 · August 2016

I dislike the Moore era to the point that ill never own any of his films. I like Sir Roger Moore as a person and as a humanitarian but I loathe his portrayal of Bond. As you mentioned he's a far cry from Fleming's Bond and I just cant buy him as the character.

heartbroken_mr_drax · August 2016

Probably due to my age, I find that most non-fans haven't even really seen anything pre-Goldeneye. If they have, it's usually Goldfinger and sometimes Octopussy.

Most of them have a preconceived notion that SC is the best - don't really have their own opinion on Moore, only one influenced by SC lovers and have never seen a Dalton film. Lazenby is usually responded with "who?". Even if they think SC is the best, they've usually never watched one!

Most of my mates who do have a greater appreciation for Bond really enjoy the Moore films, in particular TMWTGG, TSWLM and OP.

Thunderpussy · August 2016

As I grew up watching Sor Roger as Bond, eagerly awaiting every new film. So I
certainly dotn't hate him ( Infact like many I love him) But as a Bond fan, looking
for a character closer to the literary Bond. I have come to prefer the films of, Craig
Dalton and Connery.
Moore took over the role, when the producers seeemed to have almost lost a little
confidence in 007, and a much lighter tone was being introduced anyway. DAF is almost
a comedy when compared to FRWL or even GF.

Chriscoop · August 2016

Tp's right ( again 8-) ) about the comedy factor, I was born in the mid 70's so my bond love started with watching SC on the TV every now and then and increasingly Moore's films, i loved them as a boy, Christmas would bring bond on tv and toy db5 s and white lotus's octopussy was my first bond in the cinema and that film was everywhere, tv ads, back of cereal boxes etc.
Loving the bond films during RM's tenure got me reading the books. my regard for Moore is nostalgic, now we've had Dalton and DC that's more where I want my bond along with Sean Connery's first 4.
If you weren't a bond fan then I just don't think you can get Moore's tenure retrospectively, by today's standards the fashions in the films are awful, some hammy acting, a large dose of cheese and Austin Powers just took the rip. Moore's films just haven't aged well, unlike Daltons which have aged very well.

Jovius · August 2016

FYEO is my favourite of Moore's. TSWLM is cited a lot, but eh. It's tolerable. I don't really get all the love for OP either. It had some decent sequences -- especially the literally explosive opening -- but it otherwise got too silly in comparison to the previous film.

heartbroken_mr_drax · August 2016

Chriscoop wrote:

Austin Powers just took the rip

Austin Powers is mostly a rip-off of Sean Connery, the SC films and the 1960s, not the later films. The first film is mostly like YOLT (the later ones just lampoon themselves).

Connery gets away with a lot. His first two films are exceptional, but the ones that follow are bombastic, big-scale romps - GF he doesn't do anything and in the others he's asleep! They're lighthearted, big-scale films which keep you entertained by their scale, their production, their out-of-this-world feeling. Who carries this on? Moore.

Unless you're a purest, which I think is a waste of time in the Bond world, you're silly to ignore the brilliance of Moore's eclectic style he was required to put in all of his films when he had to play four different Bonds. Funny (first 2), hero (next 2), muted (FYEO), Indy Jones leading man (OP) and elder-agent-on-cusp of retirement (AVTAK).

Nobody IMO had more respect and love for the role he was playing than Moore.

Cheers Rog {[]

Ornithologist · August 2016

I "dislike" Moore but only in the sense that I tend to like the other Bond movies (I'm not sure it's really the fault of the actors) better. This forum has led me away from the "non-fan" perspective which disregards Moore altogether. Not because I follow the herd but because when re-watching I now simply pay more attention to some other factors. E.g. I now see Connery's later performances more critically, and far prefer FYEO to DAF, for example.

I think for non-fans as we call them, it is fashionable to have an opinion and I used to think it was Connery v Moore supporters, with the former in the lead by high margins. But you are right it is mostly down to ignorance, not even knowing the Dalton movies and then claiming the preference for Connery has anything to do with the literary Bond?

Number24 · August 2016

Thunderpussy wrote:

As I grew up watching Sor Roger as Bond, eagerly awaiting every new film. So I
certainly dotn't hate him ( Infact like many I love him) But as a Bond fan, looking
for a character closer to the literary Bond. I have come to prefer the films of, Craig
Dalton and Connery.
Moore took over the role, when the producers seeemed to have almost lost a little
confidence in 007, and a much lighter tone was being introduced anyway. DAF is almost
a comedy when compared to FRWL or even GF.

Agreed. Moore was also the least athletic Bond actor. I alsorate him as the weakest dramatic actor among them (Lazenby had far less experience and training, but showed more raw talent). In spite of this I can't bring myself to hate Roger Moore. He may be the nicest Bond actor and I enjoy watching his movies from time to time.

Gassy Man · August 2016

The Connery Bonds remain the gold standard -- until the Craig era, the rest are largely just imitations and iterations adjusted for their decade. With Moore, the films were right for the 1970s and 1980s. If the 1950s and 1960s were a period of order, the 1970s and 1980s were a period of entropy.

The Moore films mostly deconstructed -- usually in campy ways -- all that the Connery films built up. This was already happening, of course, with the parody films, like Helm or Flint, but by the time Moore took the role, the spy craze was over. Trying to do the Connery-type films without Connery would have made little sense in the shadow of TV's Batman and when Hippies and bell bottoms were fashionable. By then, Moore had already done Maverick, The Saint, and The Persuaders, so his light personality were well known. Moreover, it served as a great counterpoint to the "old fashioned" idea of manlihood that Connery represented.

If Connery was tough and masculine, Moore was soft and charming. If Connery's humor was ironic and sadistic, Moore's was obvious and bawdy. If Connery ruled with his fists, Moore ruled with his gadgets. If Connery was like a son to M, Moore was like the pesky nextdoor neighbor's kid. If Connery was well dressed, Moore was a dandy. At each turn, they worked hard to keep the basic idea of the character but adjusted to fit a kind of opposite expression.

To me, that's what a lot of people react to. It isn't Moore's acting -- he's just as effective at what he tries to do as Connery is. But what he tries to do is different.

The 1970s and 1980s were very different periods than the previous decades. Society was coming undone. In the 1970s, suddenly everyone wanted to be free. Long hair was in, as was casual sex. Then came disco, not to mention the energy shortage. By the 1980s, it became about punk rock and gender bending. It would have taken a guy as powerfully masculine as Connery to even hope to hold onto the classic image of Bond, and Moore wasn't him. But Moore was the right guy to slip into a disco in a white suit with a big open shirt or to later end up with Reagan-esque hair while riding a jet ski and drinking a well placed Coca Cola.

welshboy78 · August 2016

The Moore films give the Bond catalogue some variety - I welcome that even if I don't watch them as much

BIG TAM · August 2016

Gassy Man wrote:

The Connery Bonds remain the gold standard -- until the Craig era, the rest are largely just imitations and iterations adjusted for their decade. With Moore, the films were right for the 1970s and 1980s. If the 1950s and 1960s were a period of order, the 1970s and 1980s were a period of entropy.

The Moore films mostly deconstructed -- usually in campy ways -- all that the Connery films built up. This was already happening, of course, with the parody films, like Helm or Flint, but by the time Moore took the role, the spy craze was over. Trying to do the Connery-type films without Connery would have made little sense in the shadow of TV's Batman and when Hippies and bell bottoms were fashionable. By then, Moore had already done Maverick, The Saint, and The Persuaders, so his light personality were well known. Moreover, it served as a great counterpoint to the "old fashioned" idea of manlihood that Connery represented.

If Connery was tough and masculine, Moore was soft and charming. If Connery's humor was ironic and sadistic, Moore's was obvious and bawdy. If Connery ruled with his fists, Moore ruled with his gadgets. If Connery was like a son to M, Moore was like the pesky nextdoor neighbor's kid. If Connery was well dressed, Moore was a dandy. At each turn, they worked hard to keep the basic idea of the character but adjusted to fit a kind of opposite expression.

To me, that's what a lot of people react to. It isn't Moore's acting -- he's just as effective at what he tries to do as Connery is. But what he tries to do is different.

The 1970s and 1980s were very different periods than the previous decades. Society was coming undone. In the 1970s, suddenly everyone wanted to be free. Long hair was in, as was casual sex. Then came disco, not to mention the energy shortage. By the 1980s, it became about punk rock and gender bending. It would have taken a guy as powerfully masculine as Connery to even hope to hold onto the classic image of Bond, and Moore wasn't him. But Moore was the right guy to slip into a disco in a white suit with a big open shirt or to later end up with Reagan-esque hair while riding a jet ski and drinking a well placed Coca Cola.

I always enjoy reading your posts, Gassy Man. Good contextual analysis. It's too easy to dismiss Moore. One must remember the position of the series in 1973. It's quite clear in 1971 the feeling was to alter the dynamic of Bond. It had become a huge juggernaut, perhaps even a victim of its own success, leaving Fleming far behind. DAF feels like not only a rebuke to the perceived failure of OHMSS but a chance to return to an entertainment where the lead character has no baggage of back story. He's just a confident agent who goes out to foil a barmy plot. There's not even the pretence of him being a spy anymore, wandering around in tux & bow-tie around a Las Vegas casino - the only person attired as such! And Connery appears to relish this chance to take the mick out of his own creation. The urbane Moore with his Cary Grant air would have fitted comfortably into that glitzy affair. But even with tongue placed firmly in cheek, one can’t imagine Connery in LALD as that film stands. It feels distinctly modern (for the time) & crafted to a new actor. Connery’s Bond would never have put up with being snickered at by the patrons of Fillet of Soul. He’d have decked the lot of ‘em! Moore’s Bond is as distinct from Connery as say, Craig is from Brosnan. And for me, that’s as it should be.

Matt S · August 2016

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Probably due to my age, I find that most non-fans haven't even really seen anything pre-Goldeneye. If they have, it's usually Goldfinger and sometimes Octopussy.

Most of them have a preconceived notion that SC is the best - don't really have their own opinion on Moore, only one influenced by SC lovers and have never seen a Dalton film. Lazenby is usually responded with "who?". Even if they think SC is the best, they've usually never watched one!

Most of my mates who do have a greater appreciation for Bond really enjoy the Moore films, in particular TMWTGG, TSWLM and OP.

This is what I believe. I remember the things I heard about Moore and Dalton as Bond at a time when I had only seen Connery as Bond. Many people dislike Moore as Bond because they have preconceived thoughts about his Bond that they learned from other people (who learned those same thoughts from other people). People repeat the things they hear about his Bond films without seeing them, just as OHMSS gets panned simply for starring a non-actor who was only in one Bond film by people who never even saw it (or who saw the re-cut American TV version). People criticise Moore's wardrobe for 1970s fashions when they don't look at how timeless his clothes in the 80s Bond films are (which Craig copied a lot of for his casual clothes in SP). They criticise Moore for always being too silly as Bond when they don't know about how serious he is in TMWTGG and OP. And then they criticise him for being too serious in TMWTGG when they think he should only be the silly Moore-Bond and not try to act like James Bond. People say that Moore is a bad actor, which is something Moore himself has perpetuated. But Moore has also shown a wider range as Bond than Craig has, so if people think Craig is a great actor they should think the same about Moore.

ToTheRight · August 2016

When I was a kid Moore simply WAS Bond. Sean was as well, but Moore was the current 007. His films were loved at the time, though many would agree Sean played a tougher Bond. That's really how it was perceived: Moore's films were focused on humor then adventure, Sean's were adventure/suspense with the humor as an afterthought. There really wasn't much analyzing it.
I think today with Craig, the general public naturally assumes anything pre-CR is going to be cheezy and unreal. So many people I know won't even look at FRWL let alone Moonraker. It's a shame really.
Moore gives topnotch performances in all his Bonds and his enthusiasm never fades.

Gala Brand · August 2016

The early 70s were the era of the paranoid thriller, Marathon Man, Three Days of the Condor, The Parallax View, the Conversation, etc.

EON could've made tough, gritty Bond films and been in vogue.

Instead, they went in the opposite direction.

Matt S · August 2016

Gala Brand wrote:

The early 70s were the era of the paranoid thriller, Marathon Man, Three Days of the Condor, The Parallax View, the Conversation, etc.

EON could've made tough, gritty Bond films and been in vogue.

Instead, they went in the opposite direction.

Not to mention Dirty Harry, Death Wish and Get Carter. Bond could have been like them, and if George Lazenby stayed on they probably would have gone more in that direction. The campiness of Moore's 70s films was very much in line with the campy spy films of the 1960s. Bond stayed more old-fashioned rather than try to copy the new gritty action films of the 1970s. But Bond clearly made the right choice to go further towards the camp direction it started with in YOLT rather than copy the grittier style of the 1970s, which was grittier than anything that had been done in film before.

Thunderpussy · August 2016

The top films of the 70s .....

Star Wars (1977)
Jaws (1975)
The Exorcist (1973)
Grease (1978)
The Sting (1973)
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
(National Lampoon's) Animal House (1978)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
The Godfather (1972)
Superman (1978)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/80)
Smokey and the Bandit (1977)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Rocky (1976)
The Towering Inferno (1974)
American Graffiti (1973)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Love Story (1970) (tie)
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) (tie)

And the 80s ...
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Batman (1989)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Ghostbusters (1984)
Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
Back to the Future (1985)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Tootsie (1982)

Plenty of laughs and easy going adventure, all making lots of money !
Luckily gentlemen the producers should never take advice from fans.
As not a Dirty Harry or Death Wish in sight

hehadlotsofguts · August 2016

Non fans tend to hate Roger in the role because they don't think of Bond as a clown. I think the cheesiness of his films puts them off too.

Gala Brand · August 2016

Everything changed with Star Wars. The serious movies got swept away by the comic book movies.

Among the biggest grossers of the early 70s were Jaws, Godfather I and II, The French Connection, MASH, and The Exorcist.

caractacus potts · August 2016

Thunderpussy wrote:

The top films of the 70s and 80s .....

the 80s films all look pretty much like the same film over and over, except for Tootsie they're all slick special effects extravaganzas
the 70s films are a little more varied, and some of them are quite dark ... some of the comedies are rather subversive/countercultural
then there's Cuckoo's Nest, the only real "new Hollywood" film I notice on that list, its funny but both very dark and very subversive

no Bond films on either list, though ... I think its a good point they could have tried to keep it contemporary by going all paranoid thriller, but instead chose to keep remaking In Like Flint style 60s spyfilm parodies

those who dislike Moore's style and assume he's just a clown should watch The Saint ... he played that part much tougher, more cynical, he could have played Bond that way but chose to keep it light, I don't really know why he made that choice

another possible reason nonfans maybe can't get into the Moore films? those 70s fashions have just dated much more poorly (the clothes, the disco soundtracks), the early 60s era stuff still seems so much more tasteful even though its further back in time

Firemass · August 2016

MilleniumForce wrote:

dreading to get to the Moore era and how the worst is still to come.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has never even seen a Moore era film and is already heavily biased against them.

I've also met casual "Bond fans" who swear by Sean Connery but upon further questioning reveal that they have only a vague idea of which Bond film is which. Never heard of Lazenby, never seen a Dalton film, can't name a Moore era film, might have seen Goldfinger.

People want to sound smart without actually doing any research so they go along with a popular or commonly held opinion without making up their own mind.

An old saying comes to mind…something like "The less you know, the more sure you are of it."

As for the Moore era…even as a newbie Bond fan teenager I thought his films held up better and were more entertaining than the clunky, ancient and kinda boring 60's Bond. A viewpoint I still hold today.

Firemass · August 2016

caractacus potts wrote:

those who dislike Moore's style and assume he's just a clown should watch The Saint ... he played that part much tougher, more cynical, he could have played Bond that way but chose to keep it light, I don't really know why he made that choice

I've seen about 20+ Saint episodes and have to say that Moore is way better as 007. His Bond films speak for themselves…no need to see any other outside works for "better" examples of his acting abilities.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Austin Powers is mostly a rip-off of Sean Connery, the SC films and the 1960s, not the later films. The first film is mostly like YOLT (the later ones just lampoon themselves).

I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it!

Chriscoop wrote:

unlike Daltons which have aged very well.

Oh yeah…I just love the second half of TLD where Bond is helping the Taliban. 8-)

Matt S wrote:

And then they criticise him for being too serious in TMWTGG when they think he should only be the silly Moore-Bond and not try to act like James Bond.

This also bothers me. Just one of the many double-standards used to criticize the Moore era. Heck, Roger gets flak for films he wasn't even in.

walther p99 · August 2016

caractacus potts wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

The top films of the 70s and 80s .....

the 80s films all look pretty much like the same film over and over, except for Tootsie they're all slick special effects extravaganzas
the 70s films are a little more varied, and some of them are quite dark ... some of the comedies are rather subversive/countercultural
then there's Cuckoo's Nest, the only real "new Hollywood" film I notice on that list, its funny but both very dark and very subversive

no Bond films on either list, though ... I think its a good point they could have tried to keep it contemporary by going all paranoid thriller, but instead chose to keep remaking In Like Flint style 60s spyfilm parodies

those who dislike Moore's style and assume he's just a clown should watch The Saint ... he played that part much tougher, more cynical, he could have played Bond that way but chose to keep it light, I don't really know why he made that choice

another possible reason nonfans maybe can't get into the Moore films? those 70s fashions have just dated much more poorly (the clothes, the disco soundtracks), the early 60s era stuff still seems so much more tasteful even though its further back in time

I think that certainly has something to do with it, I see all of Roger's films as the most dated films in the series whereas Connery's first four films are mostly timeless. I could just never take the man seriously in the role which I suppose was why they aimed for the laughs. He's the least intimidating Bond of them all.

welshboy78 · August 2016

But are the Moore films really panned due to simply Moore himself? Prob not

Would have thought a lot of the critical aspects has to do with other factors that are numerous e.g (off the top of my head) the crocodile vehicle / cheesy gaffs and seduction dialogue / Sgt Pepper / double take pigeons / extremely OTT villains / Bond in space etc

To be fair he was given crazy stuff to work with that the other Bonds didn't and he gets the rap. Only Brosnan prob came close in that respect. Will be interesting to see of EON ever go down this path again (unimaginable at the moment but who knows)

Loeffelholz · August 2016

As much as I love Sir Roger as an actor, humanitarian and human being, I was consistently disappointed in the tone of his Bond films---while enjoying bits of all of them---as I'm ever a Flemingist^TM, and was never happy about the disconnect from the books' spirit and intent in the '70s through the mid-'80s. He had some fine moments in the role, but the increasingly broad, 'dinner theatre'-style humour did alienate me.

As ever, though, props to Sir Rog for keeping Bond successful :007)

Gassy Man · August 2016

BIG TAM wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

The Connery Bonds remain the gold standard -- until the Craig era, the rest are largely just imitations and iterations adjusted for their decade. With Moore, the films were right for the 1970s and 1980s. If the 1950s and 1960s were a period of order, the 1970s and 1980s were a period of entropy.

The Moore films mostly deconstructed -- usually in campy ways -- all that the Connery films built up. This was already happening, of course, with the parody films, like Helm or Flint, but by the time Moore took the role, the spy craze was over. Trying to do the Connery-type films without Connery would have made little sense in the shadow of TV's Batman and when Hippies and bell bottoms were fashionable. By then, Moore had already done Maverick, The Saint, and The Persuaders, so his light personality were well known. Moreover, it served as a great counterpoint to the "old fashioned" idea of manlihood that Connery represented.

If Connery was tough and masculine, Moore was soft and charming. If Connery's humor was ironic and sadistic, Moore's was obvious and bawdy. If Connery ruled with his fists, Moore ruled with his gadgets. If Connery was like a son to M, Moore was like the pesky nextdoor neighbor's kid. If Connery was well dressed, Moore was a dandy. At each turn, they worked hard to keep the basic idea of the character but adjusted to fit a kind of opposite expression.

To me, that's what a lot of people react to. It isn't Moore's acting -- he's just as effective at what he tries to do as Connery is. But what he tries to do is different.

The 1970s and 1980s were very different periods than the previous decades. Society was coming undone. In the 1970s, suddenly everyone wanted to be free. Long hair was in, as was casual sex. Then came disco, not to mention the energy shortage. By the 1980s, it became about punk rock and gender bending. It would have taken a guy as powerfully masculine as Connery to even hope to hold onto the classic image of Bond, and Moore wasn't him. But Moore was the right guy to slip into a disco in a white suit with a big open shirt or to later end up with Reagan-esque hair while riding a jet ski and drinking a well placed Coca Cola.

I always enjoy reading your posts, Gassy Man. Good contextual analysis. It's too easy to dismiss Moore. One must remember the position of the series in 1973. It's quite clear in 1971 the feeling was to alter the dynamic of Bond. It had become a huge juggernaut, perhaps even a victim of its own success, leaving Fleming far behind. DAF feels like not only a rebuke to the perceived failure of OHMSS but a chance to return to an entertainment where the lead character has no baggage of back story. He's just a confident agent who goes out to foil a barmy plot. There's not even the pretence of him being a spy anymore, wandering around in tux & bow-tie around a Las Vegas casino - the only person attired as such! And Connery appears to relish this chance to take the mick out of his own creation. The urbane Moore with his Cary Grant air would have fitted comfortably into that glitzy affair. But even with tongue placed firmly in cheek, one can’t imagine Connery in LALD as that film stands. It feels distinctly modern (for the time) & crafted to a new actor. Connery’s Bond would never have put up with being snickered at by the patrons of Fillet of Soul. He’d have decked the lot of ‘em! Moore’s Bond is as distinct from Connery as say, Craig is from Brosnan. And for me, that’s as it should be.

Right back at you, BIG TAM. {[]

The counterculture had won over too many young people by that point, and they weren't taking Bond all that seriously. In this sense, Lazenby wasn't too far off when he thought the tough version of Bond might be passe. Even Connery woudl languish in the 1970s. The attempt to cast Dalton as Bond was probably a nod to changing tastes in that he seemed darker and more ruthless even than Connery, but when they couldn't get him, it made sense to go the campier route. And it worked.

heartbroken_mr_drax · August 2016

walther p99 wrote:

I think that certainly has something to do with it, I see all of Roger's films as the most dated films in the series whereas Connery's first four films are mostly timeless. I could just never take the man seriously in the role which I suppose was why they aimed for the laughs. He's the least intimidating Bond of them all.

Absolute rubbish that they're timeless. The only Bond films that are timeless are FRWL, OHMSS and to some extent, TWINE if you're looking pre-CR.

Everything else is either acceptably dated or in a complete time warp to match the vogue (in film and fashion).

I think the real reason why Moore suffers is that people don't find him cool or sexy. Connery was funny, with his one-liners and certain looks - but he got away with it because of his machismo. When Moore was being particularly smart or cleaver it was more cheeky than being irresistibly naughty.

Compare "You missed Mr. Bond" "Did I?" to "It looks very difficult.....Why no, it isn't, is it!". Basically the same Bond smartness, but different feeling.

MilleniumForce · August 2016

I have to agree that all the Moore films have dated, and that's not a bad thing. They were relevant at their time, and all capitalise on what was popular at the time, through fashion, music, and even threats (I.e the energy crisis). Again, not a bad thing. They've dated on the good kind of way. They've not become dated in offensive or bad ways (for example, the barn scene in GF is now cringed upon).

HowardB · August 2016

Getting back to the original question, why do non fans seem to hate the Moore era? My experience has been almost the opposite; many of the casual fans or non fans I know love the Moore era and really disliked the Dalton films, especially if they are of an age where the only exposure to the Connery films was on pre cable network TV. To so many of those folks, Moore and his films defined Bond for them and their expectation of a Bond film.

chrisisall · August 2016

Loeffelholz wrote:

As much as I love Sir Roger as an actor, humanitarian and human being, I was consistently disappointed in the tone of his Bond films---while enjoying bits of all of them---as I'm ever a Flemingist^TM, and was never happy about the disconnect from the books' spirit and intent in the '70s through the mid-'80s. He had some fine moments in the role, but the increasingly broad, 'dinner theatre'-style humour did alienate me.

As ever, though, props to Sir Rog for keeping Bond successful :007)

You speak for me here as well.

HowardB · August 2016

chrisisall wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

As much as I love Sir Roger as an actor, humanitarian and human being, I was consistently disappointed in the tone of his Bond films---while enjoying bits of all of them---as I'm ever a Flemingist^TM, and was never happy about the disconnect from the books' spirit and intent in the '70s through the mid-'80s. He had some fine moments in the role, but the increasingly broad, 'dinner theatre'-style humour did alienate me.

As ever, though, props to Sir Rog for keeping Bond successful :007)

You speak for me here as well.

I may not be quite the "Flemingist" as some others, but as a huge Bond fan going back to the mid 60's the Roger Moore era became the "lost" Bond years for me. Not that I completely disliked all the Moore films (I religiously went to see them all in the theater) but I was really marking time until Roger stepped down and EON came back to their senses and got themselves a "real" Bond and started making more serious Bond films again.

Why do non fans seem to hate the Moore era?

Comments