A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
We all know that A View to a Kill is Moore's best.
Disagree. Moore was not the best Bond. Not even in the top three, IMO.
We all know that A View to a Kill is Moore's best.
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.
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.
You know it's true.
Diamonds are Forever is second best.
I think the biggest missed opportunity of the whole series was YOLT since it's the real conclusion of the Tracy arc.
not enough people know how badass his universe was.
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.
atleast Roger Moore never sleepwalked through any of his movies as Connery did in YOLT and DAF.
But if you think any of them played 007 completely seriously, then you don't understand the Bond movies.
They could have always done YOLT but with a different title and location. It's better than nothing.
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. .
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
JAK®;18742321 said:Connery didn't play the role 'seriously', not like Daniel Craig
Yeah, I can agree with that. I suppose by 'serious' I meant 'angsty'.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.
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.