|
Post by Robert Sterling on Apr 25, 2008 14:48:29 GMT -5
In my opinion the problem that many people (mainly die-hard fans) have with accepting and/or enjoying Sir Roger as Bond lies in perpetual comparing his portrayal to the books and finding differences between his image and persona created by Fleming. Obviously the more differences, the worse for Sir Roger. It seems that there is only one right version of James Bond - this contained in the source material. Even those who actually like him in the role tend to defend him by pointing out that there aren't that much differences. Personally I see no point in such a tactic. Differences are evident. But I ask: and what of it? To tell the truth I don't really care for Fleming. My image of James Bond was formed by films and first Bond films I watched were those with Sir Roger. Later on I've read a couple of Fleming works of course and some of them I actually found quite entertaining. Nevertheless, it didn't affect my idea of cinematic Bond. This distinction is crucial for me: cinematic Bond is someone completely different than Bond from the books, as the art of writing and art of filmmaking are different and different are times when the books were written and the films were being made. In that way - without associating those two images - I can enjoy both films and books. I know that it'll sound naive but maybe that's a solution?
|
|
|
Post by adam on Apr 26, 2008 4:28:16 GMT -5
I could'nt imagine anyone else playing Bond in 1973. Who else was there ? Michael Billington & John Gavin were unknowns. An unknown had already tried and failed with Lazenby in 1969. Harry Salzman wanted an established hollywood star like Redford or Newman. Did he seriously think these serious actors would committ themselves to playing Bond for the next decade. Burt Reynolds was suggested but i've never known anyone describe him as handsome or suave. Reynolds love of slapstick comedy films such as 'The Cannonball Run' may have resulted the Bond films becoming even more camp than during Moores tenure. Moore had basically been playing Bond on T.V. for a decade in 'The Saint'. Simon Templer was handsome, suave, tough and a ladies man. 'The Persuaders' was a similar role and acting alongside Tony Curtis made him more popular in the states. He was well known and popular from T.V work but was now ready to quit T.V. and move into movies. Luckily for him and Cubby Brocoli, Connery had quit. In other words perfect timing for both parties. The only slightly surprising thing was his age. A 45 year old will never get the part now but in the 70's people & the media were'nt so health or age consious. Besides which he looked much younger & only in AVTAK did he look too old.
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Apr 27, 2008 18:02:52 GMT -5
In that way - without associating those two images - I can enjoy both films and books. I've never had a problem keeping the two separate, either. Even Fleming acknowledged that not all of his plots were ideally suited to the big screen. But I think the common ground between cinematic and literary Bond is that they essentially share the same goal: Escapism. You didn't read Fleming or watch a Bond film for realism. In this respect, I think Moore made a fantastic 007. And to be fair, his portrayal did contain many aspects that Fleming intended. What fascinated me about James Bond as a kid was that he wasn't just a generic action hero. He didn't just accomplish the mission- he did so with style and class. This is why I believe the Cubby Bonds will always be regarded as superior- particularly the 60's Bonds. Those films allowed Bond to set the trends- whereas the modern EON just views the character as a way to reflect or follow them.
|
|
|
Post by Robert Sterling on Apr 28, 2008 4:30:22 GMT -5
This is very true (although seems to be forgotten nowadays) - the main purpose of James Bond is to provide escapist entertainment. And his main strength (and the reason for his worldwide popularity throughout the years) is that every man wants to be him and every woman wants to be with him. Why? Because his is stylish, classy and fun. Due to that we can't take him seriously (well, at least too seriously), because in such case not much of this fun remains. Once I've found an article focusing on that and as it presents thoughts very close to my own in much more interesting way I'll quote an excerpt: Full version of the article (entitled "In defense of Roger Moore as James Bond" by Øyvind Olsholt) can be found on rogermoore.prv.pl
|
|
mh4213
Commander
Saved by the bell...!
Posts: 241
|
Post by mh4213 on Apr 29, 2008 5:45:36 GMT -5
I agree that Bond is escapist. The books are escapist too
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Apr 29, 2008 6:17:02 GMT -5
In my opinion the problem that many people (mainly die-hard fans) have with accepting and/or enjoying Sir Roger as Bond lies in perpetual comparing his portrayal to the books and finding differences between his image and persona created by Fleming. Obviously the more differences, the worse for Sir Roger. It seems that there is only one right version of James Bond - this contained in the source material. Even those who actually like him in the role tend to defend him by pointing out that there aren't that much differences. Personally I see no point in such a tactic. Differences are evident. But I ask: and what of it? To tell the truth I don't really care for Fleming. My image of James Bond was formed by films and first Bond films I watched were those with Sir Roger. Later on I've read a couple of Fleming works of course and some of them I actually found quite entertaining. Nevertheless, it didn't affect my idea of cinematic Bond. This distinction is crucial for me: cinematic Bond is someone completely different than Bond from the books, as the art of writing and art of filmmaking are different and different are times when the books were written and the films were being made. In that way - without associating those two images - I can enjoy both films and books. I know that it'll sound naive but maybe that's a solution? If it wasn't for Sir Rog, I doubt I'd be the fan I am today. His class, charm and comic timing made him my personal favourite Bond. I now appreciate Connery, Brosnan and Dalton more now thanks to the image given to me by the performances of Sir Rog. He helped ensure the character was bigger than the original actor (Connery) to play him. If it wasn't for Cubby, the James Bond character would not be the phenomenon it is today and praise has to go to the man who saved, prolonged and ensured we still get Bond movies today (Sir Roger).
|
|
Alec 006
Commander
"Finish the job, James! Blow them all to hell !!"
Posts: 422
|
Post by Alec 006 on Apr 30, 2008 5:00:19 GMT -5
My image of James Bond was formed by films and first Bond films I watched were those with Sir Roger. Later on I've read a couple of Fleming works of course and some of them I actually found quite entertaining. Nevertheless, it didn't affect my idea of cinematic Bond. This distinction is crucial for me: cinematic Bond is someone completely different than Bond from the books, as the art of writing and art of filmmaking are different and different are times when the books were written and the films were being made. In that way - without associating those two images - I can enjoy both films and books. I know that it'll sound naive but maybe that's a solution? Hello, What's written above here...WOW! My first Bond experience happened in 1979 when my Dad took myself, my brother, and his friend to the Paramount movie theatre to see "Moonraker". I do enjoy reading Fleming very much now that I'm older, and I think we all also all strongly agree that without Ian Fleming, we wouldn't all be here in the first place. Having said that, the the cinematic James Bond started it all for me, and that's where my heart will always be. Although Sir Sean was the original (and oh, so very good)...it was Sir Roger for who was my first, and oh, so very good!!! Mr. Moore was the man I ever first saw in the gun barrel walking, turning, and shooting! I get chills just thinking about that night, waiting in a very long line-up. It was a beautiful, warm, evening in Canada. I was nine years old! Getting back to "the quote"...it's like Mr. Sterling read my mind and started typing! Welcome aboard Robert Sterling! So glad you decided to join us!!!! Take Care! P.S. I also enjoy the books AND the movies, and I DEFINATELY don't feel naive!
|
|
|
Post by Robert Sterling on Apr 30, 2008 13:59:32 GMT -5
It's always a pleasure to find someone with similar point of view. I also am very glad to be here and have the opportunity of meeting such people (apart from participating in really interesting discussions).
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on May 1, 2008 4:52:25 GMT -5
I watched the films first - as a very young person in the 1980's - before I read the novels, so the cinematic Bond of Connery. Moore and even George was James Bond, I did not have a book to judge it against. The novels are a bit different, but still escapist. One thing I should mention is that Daniel Craig is not much like Fleming 's Bond and that Casino Royale was a shocking adaption of the novel. Even people who loved Casino Royale the film admit that it could have been a better adaption. I feel commercial pressures may have spoilt it a bit! Sir Roger's films contained many of the bits people remember from Bond films.
|
|