Age comes into it, if you were pre-teen during the Rog era, he was your man. However, if in your 20s, well, very jarring as all other movies were in The Godfather, Deerhunter, Rocky mode, rather gritty and pessimistic, a big contrast to the Moore films.
Age comes into it, if you were pre-teen during the Rog era, he was your man. However, if in your 20s, well, very jarring as all other movies were in The Godfather, Deerhunter, Rocky mode, rather gritty and pessimistic, a big contrast to the Moore films.
Well, I'm not entirely sure of that. I was a teenager during the Brosnan era, but in my view, Connery and Dalton are the best Bonds. Not Brosnan. Not Moore. Connery and Dalton, more than any other Bond actor, plays Bond closer to the original Fleming version than any other.
It would be very difficult for me to completely forsake my Bond films, but if they go back to the jokey, lightweight Roger Moore style, my will is going to be put to the ultimate test!
I remember going to see DAF and was really depressed. They left Fleming's Bond in the 60's and decided to follow the "Austin Powers" vein of spoofing the whole series and character. Just keep remaking YOLT with larger spectacle and more explosions. From DAF through Moonraker, we kept getting the marketing of James Bond instead of the agent from the books. I blame the ignorant public mostly, because a good percentage of them never even read a Fleming novel and therefore unjustly increased the coffers of the film distributors and the production company.
They at least threw out the YOLT plot when they did LALD and gave Moore a good running start in the role, but why did they have to throw in the comedy sketches with Pepper and the Southern Keystone cops as well as Rosie Carver and the whole flying lesson scene? If they had kept these out LALD would have been much better. At least they toned it back down with Octopussy and FYEO, but then they came out with FAVTAK and went back to just remaking a pale Goldfinger knockoff. I thought Moore improved with these films as well as the writing, but by then he started showing his age and got less believable for me. It's a pity they did not follow LALD with FYEO then Octopussy and left TMWTGG, TSWLM and Moonraker for the future when maybe they would have been adapted closer to the novels instead of just "by the book" series of action set pieces.
That's rather harsh putting so much of the blame on to the ignorant public. After all, it was the ignorant public that created Bondmania and helped make the films so successful in the first place. The buck stopped with Broccoli & Saltzman, they ultimately decided on the tone of the films. The blame (if any) lay mostly with them.
Undoubtedly, the humour went too far on occasion during the Roger Moore era. There's no justification for the silliness of double take pigeons, Tarzan yells, Beach Boys etc. It's often forgotten that there was also a lot of good humour. And often forgotten that the silliness was not confined just to the Moore era.
Yes, the ignorant public did create Bondmania and make the series successful. Yes, the buck did stop with the producers and they decided on the direction of the films. I still put as much of the blame on the public. The producers decide on what direction to take a series depending on what the box office returns are. They did OHMSS and the returns were a drop from YOLT. The redid YOLT formula with DAF, increased the humor and got their big box office back. Like any successful business mogul, you give the public what they say they want with the ticket sales. Remember New Coke?
Fortunately, after many years and films go by and the coffers get to a comfortable level and a series proves it's box office dependability, producers can afford to try and tinker with the formula, either by going back to basics or rebooting the entire thing (Batman, Spiderman, Star Trek, Casino Royale). I'm only glad I was around long enough to see them go back with CR, and I only hope they stay with the spirit of Fleming's Bond and material into the foreseeable future. If they ever went back to the Austin Powers silliness of past efforts, I'm afraid I would foresake seeing them until they got the Bond ship back on course.
I remember going to see DAF and was really depressed. They left Fleming's Bond in the 60's and decided to follow the "Austin Powers" vein of spoofing the whole series and character. Just keep remaking YOLT with larger spectacle and more explosions. From DAF through Moonraker, we kept getting the marketing of James Bond instead of the agent from the books. I blame the ignorant public mostly, because a good percentage of them never even read a Fleming novel and therefore unjustly increased the coffers of the film distributors and the production company.
They at least threw out the YOLT plot when they did LALD and gave Moore a good running start in the role, but why did they have to throw in the comedy sketches with Pepper and the Southern Keystone cops as well as Rosie Carver and the whole flying lesson scene? If they had kept these out LALD would have been much better. At least they toned it back down with Octopussy and FYEO, but then they came out with FAVTAK and went back to just remaking a pale Goldfinger knockoff. I thought Moore improved with these films as well as the writing, but by then he started showing his age and got less believable for me. It's a pity they did not follow LALD with FYEO then Octopussy and left TMWTGG, TSWLM and Moonraker for the future when maybe they would have been adapted closer to the novels instead of just "by the book" series of action set pieces.
That's rather harsh putting so much of the blame on to the ignorant public. After all, it was the ignorant public that created Bondmania and helped make the films so successful in the first place. The buck stopped with Broccoli & Saltzman, they ultimately decided on the tone of the films. The blame (if any) lay mostly with them.
Undoubtedly, the humour went too far on occasion during the Roger Moore era. There's no justification for the silliness of double take pigeons, Tarzan yells, Beach Boys etc. It's often forgotten that there was also a lot of good humour. And often forgotten that the silliness was not confined just to the Moore era.
Yes, the ignorant public did create Bondmania and make the series successful. Yes, the buck did stop with the producers and they decided on the direction of the films. I still put as much of the blame on the public. The producers decide on what direction to take a series depending on what the box office returns are. They did OHMSS and the returns were a drop from YOLT. The redid YOLT formula with DAF, increased the humor and got their big box office back. Like any successful business mogul, you give the public what they say they want with the ticket sales. Remember New Coke?
Fortunately, after many years and films go by and the coffers get to a comfortable level and a series proves it's box office dependability, producers can afford to try and tinker with the formula, either by going back to basics or rebooting the entire thing (Batman, Spiderman, Star Trek, Casino Royale). I'm only glad I was around long enough to see them go back with CR, and I only hope they stay with the spirit of Fleming's Bond and material into the foreseeable future. If they ever went back to the Austin Powers silliness of past efforts, I'm afraid I would foresake seeing them until they got the Bond ship back on course.
Now, the bolded bits are where you lose me, Atticus. Criticise the Moore films all you like but could we please drop the daft and overblown comparisons with Austin Powers? Thanks.
Comments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well, I'm not entirely sure of that. I was a teenager during the Brosnan era, but in my view, Connery and Dalton are the best Bonds. Not Brosnan. Not Moore. Connery and Dalton, more than any other Bond actor, plays Bond closer to the original Fleming version than any other.
Now, the bolded bits are where you lose me, Atticus. Criticise the Moore films all you like but could we please drop the daft and overblown comparisons with Austin Powers? Thanks.
Roger Moore 1927-2017