Roger E. Moore - the split-off Bond discussion

[Darrin Drader]

Don't know if that helps, seeing that there's no 'bond' between Moore and John (and the only bond John had screentime with is Remington Steele...).

That brings up an interesting question. Does anyone think that Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond. When I was born Roger Moore already had the roll, so to me he was James Bond. That said, when I occasionally watch those movies again, they are almost painfully comic bookish, which was his trademark style. Sean Connery was the first James Bond, but was he truly the best?

My own preference goes, from top to bottom, Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and Timothy Dalton. Any other opinions?

 

[evileeyore]

I generally follow your listing but place Roger Moore...last. I don't know I just never liked Moore as Bond. Of course growing up I seem to only really remember Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton as Bonds (excluding Moore as I didna like his work).

TTFN

EvilE

 

[Berandor]

I think Brosnan is the best Bond, but not appearing in the best Bonds. So my favourite would be Sean Connery, and... well, pretty much Whsperfot's list.
Coincidence?

 

[JeffB]

Sean is the man.

Then Lazenby & Dalton. Though neither "looked" the part, I felt both acted the part superbly.

As a kid I thought Moore was the best, but now I'd say he was my least favorite. His work in The Saint & The Wild Geese were much better than his Bond work.

 

[Piratecat]

The original thread was here. I split off the part involving the Bond discussion. Enjoy!

 

[Hand of Evil]

The original thread was here. I split off the part involving the Bond discussion. Enjoy!

That is so 'Q' of you!

Sean made the role of Bond but Pierce Brosnan has been the best to fit the bill of Bond. Rodger was not bad but Tim and Lazenby just could not carry the role, which is very difficult in range; Bond being witty, charming, dangerous, lover, thug, dashing, adventous, smart, on-and-on.

 

[buzzard]

Sean made the role of Bond but Pierce Brosnan has been the best to fit the bill of Bond. Rodger was not bad but Tim and Lazenby just could not carry the role, which is very difficult in range; Bond being witty, charming, dangerous, lover, thug, dashing, adventous, smart, on-and-on.

I don't know if Brosnan is a better fit than Connery, though I certainly think he's a great Bond. However he has gotten the shaft in that all of his Bond movies (except Goldeneye) have been miserable. I didn't even bother to see the last one.

buzzard

 

[Flyspeck23]

Some years ago I've read an article (by a Fleming fanatic, obviously) who said that Roger Moore was actually truest to the books.

Don't know if that's right - I've never read a single one of them...

 

[buzzard]

Some years ago I've read an article (by a Fleming fanatic, obviously) who said that Roger Moore was actually truest to the books.

Don't know if that's right - I've never read a single one of them...

I've read about half (of the Fleming and one of the Gardner), and I'd have to disagree. Either Connery or Brosnan are IMHO closest to the books. Bond is a fairly grim character. Moore was far too flippant about it. Really thinking about it I probably have to give the nod to Brosnan. I think he does a better job of acting the high class part (which is really core to Bond).

Of course the movies and books have so little in common that it is rather pointless to really base opinions of the movies on the books. Only a couple of the movies had anything to do with their respective books, and that's really only the early ones (I'm speaking only of Fleming books BTW).

buzzard

 

[Richards]

Many people didn't like George Lazenby as Bond, but all I can say is: of all the Bonds, he was the one that hooked Mrs. Peel (Diana Rigg)! Way to go, George!

Johnathan