rm could have been best bond of all time

superdaddy · March 2008

just watched a early episode of the saint starring rm imo if he had played bond first looking like that and playing the part like he played sean flynn in wild geese not only would he have been best bond on film but again imo he would have been just how fleming first conjured up bond an englishman not scottish

cbdouble07 · March 2008

I am sure there are many people, including quite a few on this site, who already feel that Roger was the best Bond in the series. I tend to agree with you that he would have been better if he had played Bond first and in his earlier days, though I don't think he would have been the best even then. I tend to like Moore's performances in his early films better than his performances in his later films (though I do enjoy FYEO and Octopussy quite a bit). He feels more like Bond to me in his early days and looks the part a bit more. His age in some of the later films hurt him a bit IMO. Just looked a bit to old to play Bond toward the end. But I also think that he just got too comfortable in the role and began to rely too much on humor and didn't seem to take the role as seriously as others. I think he had a bit of a harder edge in the early films and seemed more like a guy fully capable of killing people. I've always thought that Moore in LALD was one of the best performances of Bond in the series, one of the top ten performances IMO. Of course, he couldn't have played Bond earlier because there was a guy named Connery who was quite capable of playing Bond.

chrisno1 · March 2008

Sir Roger got bogged down with first Mankiewicz's then Wood's then Wilsons's writing, which constantly stressed the jokey throwaway style Roger had perfected in The Persuaders. I like aspects of LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and FYEO which, while still humourous, show a darker side to Roger's Bond. He is quite cruel to Rosie and Andrea, shows genuine feeling when discussing death with Anya, and tackles the hardcore violence in FYEO admirably. He is certainly underated. Not sure he's the best Bond, but i feel he is a lot closer to Fleming's imagining than Connery et al.

words · March 2008

superdaddy wrote:

just watched a early episode of the saint starring rm imo if he had played bond first looking like that and playing the part like he played sean flynn in wild geese not only would he have been best bond on film but again imo he would have been just how fleming first conjured up bond an englishman not scottish

I agree with you. I wish he had played it like he did Sean Flynn, or even his character in Gold who was a pretty cool customer. He was a victim of his screenplays to some degree, as I believe was Brosnan. That said, I love Roger as Bond!

Dominic Greene · April 2008

He was brilliant in FYEO, he showed he could play a much darker bond instead of a slapstick one, If all of Moore's Bond film's where like FYEO then of course he would of been one of the best bond, i alway's hated the one liner's Morre came out with, i also hated how he turned bond into a comedian ie: Dressed has a clown in OP? A joke.

mr zorin · May 2008

I agree that Roger Moore was very good in FYEO but i think hes better then most people make out .I think one of the resons why he isn't that highly thought of is because most of his movies weren't as good as the Connery films.The reason why is not so much him playing Bond but more of the story in them.

RJJB · May 2008

If Moore would have been the first Bond, he would have been the only Bond. The series would have never caught on the way it did, based on his comedic approach. He could have never handled the seriousness of the first four movies. Just take a look at the "competition" in the 60s: Our Man Flint, Matt Helm and other spy movies cashed in on the craze but were just a flash in the pan. No longevity at all. The series starting with Moore would have died a quick death. Moore owes all his success to the Bond foundation that was built long before he inherited the role.

Dan Same · May 2008

RJJB wrote:

If Moore would have been the first Bond, he would have been the only Bond. The series would have never caught on the way it did, based on his comedic approach. He could have never handled the seriousness of the first four movies. Just take a look at the "competition" in the 60s: Our Man Flint, Matt Helm and other spy movies cashed in on the craze but were just a flash in the pan. No longevity at all. The series starting with Moore would have died a quick death. Moore owes all his success to the Bond foundation that was built long before he inherited the role.

I think that Moore could absolutely have handled the seriousness of the first four films, since IMO I wouldn't describe him as comedic. I also think that to say he 'owes all his success to the Bond foundation that was built long before he inherited the role' is extraordinarily OTT, regardless of what you think of him. Afterall, Moore was more succcessful than either Lazenby or Dalton.

Plus, one could easily argue that the only reason Craig's Bond is successful is either because of the success of the previous films, or because Craig is so different to other Bonds, not because Craig himself is good or not.

I'm not a big fan of Craig, but I have no problem in acknowledging that many people like him and that Craig himself has played a role in his success (although we will see just how big a role he has played in his success when QOS is released.) Similarly, simply because you dislike Moore, to deny that he played a role in his success is absolutely ridiculous.

emtiem · May 2008

Dan Same wrote:

Plus, one could easily argue that the only reason Craig's Bond is successful is either because of the success of the previous films, or because Craig is so different to other Bonds, not because Craig himself is good or not.

I see what you're saying; you need contrast. Which means that if we'd had another playing like Brosnan, there's a good chance that he would have been very unsuccessful.

As for Roger, his strengths are in comedy and charisma, and as such I think we got the best Bond out of him. He could well be my favourite. He could have played it a bit more serious, but I don't think he's quite as good at doing that as he is when he's got a twinkle of fun in his eye.

RJJB · May 2008

Dan Same wrote:

RJJB wrote:

If Moore would have been the first Bond, he would have been the only Bond. The series would have never caught on the way it did, based on his comedic approach. He could have never handled the seriousness of the first four movies. Just take a look at the "competition" in the 60s: Our Man Flint, Matt Helm and other spy movies cashed in on the craze but were just a flash in the pan. No longevity at all. The series starting with Moore would have died a quick death. Moore owes all his success to the Bond foundation that was built long before he inherited the role.

I think that Moore could absolutely have handled the seriousness of the first four films, since IMO I wouldn't describe him as comedic. I also think that to say he 'owes all his success to the Bond foundation that was built long before he inherited the role' is extraordinarily OTT, regardless of what you think of him. Afterall, Moore was more succcessful than either Lazenby or Dalton.

Plus, one could easily argue that the only reason Craig's Bond is successful is either because of the success of the previous films, or because Craig is so different to other Bonds, not because Craig himself is good or not.

I'm not a big fan of Craig, but I have no problem in acknowledging that many people like him and that Craig himself has played a role in his success (although we will see just how big a role he has played in his success when QOS is released.) Similarly, simply because you dislike Moore, to deny that he played a role in his success is absolutely ridiculous.

Excuse me, but the topic of discussion is Roger Moore as being the first Bond, so any comparison to Dalton or Lazenby has not part in this. Sorry, but there is no way that Moore could have held his own against the likes of Red Grant, Goldfinger or SPECTRE. Moore himself acknowledged that he could not play the role as seriously as it was originally designed, so he added his own comedic approach. By the time he slipped into the role, the public was firmly entrenched into Bond movies and wanted to see them, regardless of who was playing Bond. It's comprable to wearing a ratty old sweater. It's not the best, but you're used to it and it does the job to a degree.

I may dislike Moore, but I saw every one of his movies numerous times in the theater, because they were still Bond Movies. Crappy Bond movies, but Bond movies nonetheless. And Moore, with his limited physical attributes and complete lack of believeable relationships with his leading ladies, suited the movies perfectly. A lousy Bond for a series of lousy movies.

Dan Same · May 2008

RJJB wrote:

Excuse me, but the topic of discussion is Roger Moore as being the first Bond, so any comparison to Dalton or Lazenby has not part in this.

It's about how he could have been the best Bond of all time, and considering that you said 'Moore owes all his success to the Bond foundation that was built long before he inherited the role,' comparisons to Dalton and Lazenby (and Craig) are completely valid. If you don't like that I brought up Dalton and Lazenby (which you did not respond to), then you shouldn't have said the last sentence.

RJJB wrote:

Sorry, but there is no way that Moore could have held his own against the likes of Red Grant, Goldfinger or SPECTRE.

Well, I disagree. I think he definitely could have held his own. RJJB, you do realise this is purely subjective?

RJJB wrote:

Moore himself acknowledged that he could not play the role as seriously as it was originally designed, so he added his own comedic approach.

Well, I guess I think that Moore is a better actor than he realises or publicly acknowledges. I think that Moore is incredibly talented and he could have done all of the 60's films with no problem whatsoever.

RJJB wrote:

By the time he slipped into the role, the public was firmly entrenched into Bond movies and wanted to see them, regardless of who was playing Bond. It's comprable to wearing a ratty old sweater. It's not the best, but you're used to it and it does the job to a degree.

Perhaps members of the public actually loved Moore?

RJJB, you may hate Moore, but don't speak as if your opinion is representative of the public. Considering the success of Moore and his films, it would seem that most people were fans of his.

RJJB wrote:

I may dislike Moore, but I saw every one of his movies numerous times in the theater, because they were still Bond Movies. Crappy Bond movies, but Bond movies nonetheless. And Moore, with his limited physical attributes and complete lack of believeable relationships with his leading ladies, suited the movies perfectly. A lousy Bond for a series of lousy movies.

iI completely disagree. You hate Moore, fine, but I feel the exact opposite. I don't think his physical attributes were that limited (although he was of course not the best of the physical Bonds), I loved his relationships with his leading ladies (such as in TSWLM) and I found them completely believeable. I also consider his films to be among the best Bond films of all time (TSWLM is IMO the greatest ever non-Connery film) and I regard Moore to be the third best Bond of all (behind Connery and Brosnan.) I think he was alot better than Lazenby, Dalton and Craig.

RJJB, you may hate Moore more than life itself, but please understand that you're not speaking on anyone else's behalf but your own. What you have said about Moore is completely subjective.

RJJB · May 2008

Dan Same wrote:

RJJB, you may hate Moore more than life itself, but please understand that you're not speaking on anyone else's behalf but your own. What you have said about Moore is completely subjective.

Of course I am only speaking on my behalf, and what I say about Moore is completely subjective, just as your opinion is too. As to hating Moore than life itself, that's a bit strong. I choose not to waste any more time watching his movies. The man obviously has his fans and that's fine with me. I could spend all my time rebutting comments about Moore here and on other boards.
I try to limit it to the very broadest topics, such as the initial one here. But no amount of discussion will ever change my opinion, any more than my point of view will change yours.

Loeffelholz · May 2008

Sir Roger Moore---Bringing Bond Fans Together {[]

youknowmyname · May 2008

Loeff, too funny.

Roger Moore, what a man! I loved him as James Bond, why? b/c he made me laugh. they were a different type of Bond film for a different time. people needed to laugh at government and spies and double crosses because it was all too real to them at the time. you can see this emerging in connery's time as well.

Although I won't say that Roger Moore would've been the "best" Bond of all time I reckon he would've been damn good in earlier years. with that said I still enjoyed him when he did play it (embalmed in AVTAK or not).

My favorites Moore films are definitely LALD, FYEO, and THMWTGG although the last one goes in and out of my favor LALD is one of my more preferred Bond movies.

Oddly enough, for a while Moonraker was my favorite...a different time in my life

.

Tee Hee · June 2008

Loeffelholz wrote:

Sir Roger Moore---Bringing Bond Fans Together {[]

) {[]

Fair enough. However, need I bring you back to 2005? :v

Loeffelholz · June 2008

Tee Hee wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Sir Roger Moore---Bringing Bond Fans Together {[]

) {[]

Fair enough. However, need I bring you back to 2005? :v

No need...we're all still basking in the glory of the Craig Era :007)

Thomas Crown · July 2008

Sir Roger Moore seems to be one of the most graceful actors to wear 007's shoulder holster. And I have an affinity for his portrayal of 007 in the The Spy Who Loved Me, which I find him to look the part, reveal a refreshing level of character not seen in the films immediately proceeding it, in a fun Bond film. While many, including myself, praise the change of tone in For Your Eyes Only, I found his age to show a bit too much in this film for the more authentic approach of 007 to work for him. That said, he was never all that interested in that approach, famously noting to Director John Glen, when discussing pushing Locque's car off the cliff, "my Bond does not do that sort of thing." He may not, but 007 does.

That really sums up Moore's era, one that while popular, cemented the chasm between an authentic interpretation of the Bond world/character, to one that fit Moore's own personality. So, for as much as I enjoy The Spy Who Loved Me, and admire Moore's humanitarian efforts, I find his era to be more of a cautionary tale about how much this series loses when it departs from its roots.

rennervision · July 2008

I would say each Bond actor is the best for whichever movie they appear. I couldn't imagine Roger Moore in TLD - Timothy Dalton is perfect in that one. I couldn't imagine Timothy Dalton in LALD - Roger Moore is perfect in that one.

Now the one area where I would say Roger Moore reigns supreme is his voice. I love hearing him say the "Bond. James Bond." line. I've always thought he had the best delivery of all the Bond actors.

dougie007 · August 2008

This post really seems to be getting the blood boiling!!

I've said on previous posts that I regard RM as the best Bond - he is a very 70's 007 - right for that decade and into the early 80's. just as Connery was right for the 60's.

There is argument for saying that he should probably have stopped after FYEO - but there are still positives to take from Octopussy and AVTAK. If he damaged the series by doing these films, why did we move on to TD, PB and DC? Its because we LOVE these films. Aspects might be a bit dodgy, but we keep going back for more!

I could see him doing it in the 60's - he was virtually doing it as the Saint anyway. If I remember correctly, he almost got Bond on a few occasions except he was tied to different roles.

rm could have been best bond of all time

Comments