Roger Moore Sucked In "For Your Eyes Only."

[Sawyer]

We all know that A View to a Kill is Moore's best.

 

[The Joker]

We all know that A View to a Kill is Moore's best.

Because he got to screw Grace Jones?

 

[Sawyer]

Because of everything.

Especially Duran Duran.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Disagree. Moore was not the best Bond. Not even in the top three, IMO.

I agree 1000%. Moore ruined a legend in my opinipon running around like a clown

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's silly how people just go by common misconceptions.

After From Russia With Love, Connery did not play the Bond role any more seriously than Moore ever did. And the campiest Bond movie is not one of Rogers, it's Diamonds are Forever, which is a centimeter away from being a full on comedy.

As for puns and one-liners, Connery has plenty of them and he himself used to come up with a lot of them. And atleast Roger Moore never sleepwalked through any of his movies as Connery did in YOLT and DAF.

The fact is, there really is little difference between the way Connery, Lazenby and Moore played the role. Connery just naturally has more authority and masculinity. But if you think any of them played 007 completely seriously, then you don't understand the Bond movies.

 

[Franklin Richards]

How bout my favorite Connery... You Only Live Twice? Connery put some flaps on his eyes and pretended he was Japanese. Nice. I'm sure no one saw through that.

 

[Doc Ock]

We all know that A View to a Kill is Moore's best.

 

[Sawyer]

You know it's true.

 

[The Joker]

After From Russia With Love, Connery did not play the Bond role any more seriously than Moore ever did. And the campiest Bond movie is not one of Rogers, it's Diamonds are Forever, which is a centimeter away from being a full on comedy.

I beg to differ. Moore looked bored to tears in Octopussy and A View to a Kill. Not to mention too old, too.

As for puns and one-liners, Connery has plenty of them and he himself used to come up with a lot of them.

Connery used them in moderation. Moore spouted them like he was Deadpool.

 

[Majik1387]

It's silly how people just go by common misconceptions.

After From Russia With Love, Connery did not play the Bond role any more seriously than Moore ever did. And the campiest Bond movie is not one of Rogers, it's Diamonds are Forever, which is a centimeter away from being a full on comedy.

As for puns and one-liners, Connery has plenty of them and he himself used to come up with a lot of them. And atleast Roger Moore never sleepwalked through any of his movies as Connery did in YOLT and DAF.

The fact is, there really is little difference between the way Connery, Lazenby and Moore played the role. Connery just naturally has more authority and masculinity. But if you think any of them played 007 completely seriously, then you don't understand the Bond movies.

 

[Doc Ock]

You know it's true.

 

[Sawyer]

Diamonds are Forever is second best.

 

[Doc Ock]

Diamonds are Forever is second best.

Its been a while since I have seen Diamonds....so....um....yeah....ok.

 

[Catman]

I think the biggest missed opportunity of the whole series was YOLT since it's the real conclusion of the Tracy arc.

They could have always done YOLT but with a different title and location. It's better than nothing.

not enough people know how badass his universe was.

The only badass thing about the Moore era is the action. By the `70s technology had caught up to the point where they could do almost anything they wanted. That's the incredible thing about the Moore films - the action holds up incredibly well. Even for 2010 standards.

After From Russia With Love, Connery did not play the Bond role any more seriously than Moore ever did.

Not true. In Goldfinger, he blames himself for the death of the Masterson sisters. In the scene where M is lecturing Bond after the fiasco in Miami Beach we see perhaps the most emotional scene in Connery's era. "I'm aware of my short-comings, sir." Later on when he's following Goldfinger in Switzerland he is almost tempted to mess with Tilly Masterson when she's being an agressive driver. "Discipline, 007." In that movie we see Bond at his most flawed. The guy screws up like in every other scene. He doesn't even know how to stop the bomb at the end. This is why Goldfinger is the best installment. It isn't because of the gadgets or humor or pretty ladies. It's because Bond is at his most human.

In Thunderball, Bond is racing against the clock. He doesn't have time for his usual nonsense. In the first half of the film we do see a more light-hearted Bond having a few laughs at the health spa, but once he gets to the Bahamas it's the most serious we've seen him since Dr. No.

And the campiest Bond movie is not one of Rogers, it's Diamonds are Forever, which is a centimeter away from being a full on comedy.

Diamonds Are Forever is a comedy, but it isn't more campy than Moore's `70s films. Live and Let Die is a 100x more ridiculous than DAF. Moore's introduction scene is basically out of a sitcom with him trying to hide that girl from M.

atleast Roger Moore never sleepwalked through any of his movies as Connery did in YOLT and DAF.

Roger Moore sleep-walked in For Your Eyes Only. He added nothing to this movie at all. Had they saved FYEO for 1987 with Timothy Dalton it would have been considered a masterpiece. Instead we get an above-average Moore film that doesn't hold up well against other installments in the franchise.

But if you think any of them played 007 completely seriously, then you don't understand the Bond movies.

I don't think anyone wants a completely serious Bond. That's what sucked about Dalton. He lacked charm.

 

[ChickenScratch]

They could have always done YOLT but with a different title and location. It's better than nothing.

Different title and location? You mean something completely different like MR or TSWLM, AVTAK or any other myriad of movies in the series? Better than nothing is never an excuse for something that claims to be an adaptation.

If you enjoyed it then cool, but you don't have to make excuses for them. I don't like the movies for my own reasons, because they are terrible adaptations with awful characterization. No explaining is going to change that.

 

[The Joker]

Diamonds Are Forever is a comedy, but it isn't more campy than Moore's `70s films. Live and Let Die is a 100x more ridiculous than DAF. Moore's introduction scene is basically out of a sitcom with him trying to hide that girl from M. .

That was awful. What were both M and Moneypenny doing calling to Bond's house? Ever hear of a phone call to summon him to the office? And the whole thing with hiding the girl was awful.

The Man with the Golden Gun was a cheese fest, too. Between the goofy Mary Goodnight, Nick Nack being used in the sting in tail climax assassination attempt on Bond, and J.W. Pepper making an encore performance even worse than in Live and Let Die.

Oh yeah, hated Bond's Tarzan yell in the jungle in Octopussy. Cringeworthy. Moonraker, making Jaws fall in LOVE with some blonde chick in pigtails named Dolly!!!!

 

[ChickenScratch]

Mary Goodnight, another great character ruined in the movies. Bond's secretary and the one he was really into. Never understood why they changed it to Moneypenny in the movies, she was always as severe and serious as M, Bond often thought of her as an extension of Sir Miles himself.

 

[CelticPredator]

I love the first 3 Moore flicks. Although I do think Spy is too long. And FYEO.

Other then that, the rest suck ass.

Connery is good, sans Diamonds Are Forever...which is 100% dog ****.

Dalton is amazing, both flicks are great.

I dug OHMSS.

Brosnen's Bond was better then the movies...lol. GoldenEye is great, I can watch Tomorrow Never Dies, and I kinda like TWINE.

Daniel Craig's my favorite. Easily. Casino Royale is IMO the best Bond flick of the series.

I like Quantum alright....but it's nowhere near as good as Casino Royale.

 

[JAK®]

It's silly how people just go by common misconceptions.

After From Russia With Love, Connery did not play the Bond role any more seriously than Moore ever did. And the campiest Bond movie is not one of Rogers, it's Diamonds are Forever, which is a centimeter away from being a full on comedy.

Connery didn't play the role 'seriously', not like Daniel Craig, I agree. But you still got the feeling that he was an agent with a job to do, even if he didn't take everything seriously. That's because he was a smug bastard. I've yet to see DAF.

As for puns and one-liners, Connery has plenty of them and he himself used to come up with a lot of them. And atleast Roger Moore never sleepwalked through any of his movies as Connery did in YOLT and DAF.

I've never complained about one-liners, but Connery's were more natural and ever since he left the puns were forced in and started getting annoying.

The fact is, there really is little difference between the way Connery, Lazenby and Moore played the role. Connery just naturally has more authority and masculinity. But if you think any of them played 007 completely seriously, then you don't understand the Bond movies.

Well, that authority and masculinity is why I thought Connery was the best, and the lack of those qualities in every subsequent Bond is why I feel the character has been misinterpreted ever since.

I also believe that any Bond that is played seriously is missing the point, which is why Dalton wasn't memorable and Craig annoys me.

Brosnan had the smugness but by then Bond was being written as an action hero which is also a very big problem with the Bond character nowadays.

 

[Catman]

Connery didn't play the role 'seriously', not like Daniel Craig

I don't think Daniel Craig is more serious. He's just angrier. If anything, Connery is more serious since he's more professional. Or atleast attempts to be professional. Craig's Bond is a loose canon. Then again, that has to do with the writing. Casino Royale is Bond's origin. Connery played a more seasoned Bond. All his movies were based on later novels.

 

[JAK®]

I don't think Daniel Craig is more serious. He's just angrier. If anything, Connery is more serious since he's more professional. Or atleast attempts to be professional. Craig's Bond is a loose canon. Then again, that has to do with the writing. Casino Royale is Bond's origin. Connery played a more seasoned Bond. All his movies were based on later novels.

Yeah, I can agree with that. I suppose by 'serious' I meant 'angsty'.

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

what i didn't like about Moore was that he never got hurt, Connerys bond got beaten up in Doctor No, and Goldfinger, and shot in Thunder Ball. Coonery was always thinking of ways to get the bad guy Moore just had good luck.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's a lowbrow conceit to say, "This is more serious, therefore is better."

 

[ChickenScratch]

Not really, when the author intended it to be that way then yes, more serious is better.

Unless an individual preferred the comedic takes on Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Not really, when the author intended it to be that way then yes, more serious is better.

Unless an individual preferred the comedic takes on Sherlock Holmes.

Nobody said anything about comedic. There are endless levels of how serious something can be.

The Bond movies are not the novels. The movies, atleast pre-Craig, have an element of self-aware amusement that can't quite be described as tongue-in-cheek but is there nonetheless. The worst Bond movies overplay this (Diamonds are Forever) and the best ones play beautifully on the fact that they are ridiculously idealised version of reality with an impossibly perfect hero at the centre of a male fantasy.

Take Goldfinger. In no way is it a comedy, but if anyone could watch it and think it was supposed to be a po-faced serious thriller then...well, they don't get it. James Bond movies are essentially an in-joke. The audience knows how ridiculous it all is, but it's so enjoyable we just go with it.