U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2011, 11:40 PM
 
13,817 posts, read 12,600,955 times
Reputation: 6460

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
That came well after Connery portrayed Bond...Connery was 60 years old when People magazine tallied that vote.
So I assume the poll was conducted on a regular basis, in the Connery-Bond days, he just never got the vote until he turned 60?

( Of course it has got everything to do with Connery's appeal to women, not so much with "Bond" himself. You might notice that practically all women who prefer Connery to Moore are voting for Brosnan as their second choice. No surprise here))))


Quote:
Ian Fleming, the author of all the James Bond novels, so approved of Sean Connery being cast as Bond that he wrote a Scottish lineage into his later works, in deference to Connery's portrayal.
Why would he need to defend Connery's portrayal I wonder?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2011, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 29,779,743 times
Reputation: 7238
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
So Moore's movies are good because they are "more entertaining," and Connery's movies are awesome because of... what?
The Shakespearean kind of drama? The depth, the power of thought?
You could've asked without all the extra nonsense. I like Sean Connery movies better because they have better storyline, character development, and more. Pretty much, his movies are just better. Roger Moore films almost seem like a comedy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2011, 09:39 AM
 
3,552 posts, read 5,376,989 times
Reputation: 3448
Born in the time I was, Roger Moore was the first James Bond I knew, it wasn't until later that I discovered there was another James Bond before him. Roger's Bond is of course different from Sean's Bond. Connery's Bond was ruthless and had a brutal charm. Moore's Bond was a pretty boy con man, oozing with sex appeal. But I love them both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2011, 10:01 AM
 
Location: 10110001010110100
6,256 posts, read 10,328,754 times
Reputation: 5407
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryson662001 View Post
James Bond has a license to kill. Connery is believable as a killer. Roger Moore.....not so much. I did always like Moore as the Saint however.
That, imho, make Moore the better spy, that classy, gentlemanly non-killer look yet he is. If you look like Danny Trejo then anyone can believe and suspect you to be a killer but if you have a face like Paul Rudd yet you are a killer/spy...Killing has nothing to do with one's looks but if you are a killer, an innocent look could only help. Connery was just a tad too dark and hairy to be a spy.


I am probably the only soul on this planet who didn't care for Daniel Craig as the new JB. The movie was fine, it is just him as JB that I didn't like. Pierce Brosnan was also great because he had that natural wittiness, cockiness and the charisma you would expect from a 007. Daniel Craig looks like a thug not a spy, again, imho.

Btw, he was great in Layer Cake which suited his looks very good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2011, 03:02 PM
 
5,500 posts, read 4,413,364 times
Reputation: 5146
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post

( Of course it has got everything to do with Connery's appeal to women, not so much with "Bond" himself. You might notice that practically all women who prefer Connery to Moore are voting for Brosnan as their second choice. No surprise here))))



That's all 007 JB is about...conquering the ladies with his debonair-ways. And both actors fit the part...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2011, 10:37 PM
 
13,817 posts, read 12,600,955 times
Reputation: 6460
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco View Post
Connery was just a tad too dark and hairy to be a spy.

Thank you.
That sums it all up pretty much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2011, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
9,447 posts, read 7,595,884 times
Reputation: 6000
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
When I was growing up as a kid, it seemed that everyone loved Roger Moore. In fact, no one even wanted to talk about Sean Connery. He was that guy from the "old" films that weren't nearly as exciting as the new ones which Moore was in. The RM movies were always huge blockbusters.

But nowadays, it seems like Connery's films have become even more popular than Moore.

Is this true? What gives?


I still remember Roger Moore as being Simon Templar in the British TV show "The Saint".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 05:10 PM
 
Location: United States
359 posts, read 205,714 times
Reputation: 198
Roger Moore is my fave bond
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 02:56 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
8,853 posts, read 4,823,610 times
Reputation: 7680
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
When I was growing up as a kid, it seemed that everyone loved Roger Moore. In fact, no one even wanted to talk about Sean Connery. He was that guy from the "old" films that weren't nearly as exciting as the new ones which Moore was in. The RM movies were always huge blockbusters.

But nowadays, it seems like Connery's films have become even more popular than Moore.

Is this true? What gives?
Well, two, perhaps three things at least.

First of all, one has to keep in mind how we had movies back then. We saw them at the theatre for the weeks they were there and then that was it. We might see them again when they came back on circuit the next year. Then we might see them again, in about two years, when ABC showed them on Sunday night. So back then, we had very limited exposure.

Now, compared that to how movies are presented now.

Secondly, one should consider what Roger had going for him as he came into the part. At least two TV series (The Saint and the Persuaders). So he entered the role with decent exposure....and the need to show his Bond was not like them.

Finally, this is a guess but consider, how many of the audience had read the books when Connery came to the part....and perhaps how many of the audience had not read the books when Moore came to the role. If that is correct, that probably aided Moore tremendously in playing Bond tongue in cheek which, at the time in the vacuum of entertainment we had, not only enabled him to get away with it, but also, took off like a rocket.

This is why, IMHO, why Dalton's success was very limited. He was playing a book Bond but by that time, people had been hooked on Moore's circus Bond and they wanted that.

So why, assuming it has, did Connery's Bond take it back? Because we are now in an era where his films can be seen entirely again without commercial breaks. I didn't get to see the Connery Bonds in entirety, without the ABC censoring, until around 1987, for example.

THAT SAID, which actor does it better, both from by the book and otherwise?

Well, the most recent Bond book I've reread is "Casino Royale" and then, before that, early in this century, the stories in "For Your Eyes Only" and then "You Only Live Twice" in the early 90's.

The thing is, no one can play a perfect book Bond; the movie wouldn't fly. There is a line in "Casino Royale" that says clearly what Bond is......."women were for entertainment".

But that said.....it's Timothy Dalton. He plays the best book Bond. The catch is, as it has been demonstrated, that is not really what the audience wants to see on the screen. "The Living Daylights" was better than "Licence to Kill".

So then, who is the best, otherwise? Well, before I get to that, let me take Craig out of the running. i stopped watching at the reboot because they had essentially changed Bond to something else. Moving on........

Womanizer wise, it's Connery. He's the closest to playing that line from "Casino Royale". Time and time again, that's how he treats women. It is probably fortunate for Connery that he didn't do OHMSS.

Could Connery have done the later movies? Well, he certainly could have done "Live and Let Die" because consider what Bond does to Solitaire. He takes her, beds her, comes on to her like her hero but in reality, he is just using her as a pawn to get to his enemy. Moore does it with a little bit more flair but it is still a cold approach of using people.

But otherwise, "movie wise", is he still the best?

Well, one thing about the Connery flicks is that they were the ones where often Bond didn't have his own private army. With Connery's Bond, that's probably a good thing because such a user of people is not the best leader of an army. Battle wise, that doesn't matter that much because it's "graduation through cooperation" and the battle is short......but it does help in the believability.

Hence, I'd say it's a toss up between Pierce and Lazenby. Pierce's Bond is not a total user of people; hence, he is able to generate allies here and there.

The thing with Lazenby is we only saw him in one flick, but that one flick was pretty darn good. Some of his quips that he uses to buy time, such as "And where's the party this time?" might have been a little bit off in presentation, but there's a nice balance of the person. From where he is exchanging quips with the villain to buy time, to the realization of how dangerous Blofeld is this time, to his losing it and flying into a slight rage when he sees Campbell dead. All right for a person, all believable.

"But what about Bond in a dress? Connery would never do that!" Connery might not of, maybe, but we aren't talking Connery, we are talking Bond.............and Bond would do whatever is necessary to accomplish the mission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 06:08 AM
 
Location: Maine
15,072 posts, read 19,718,275 times
Reputation: 17188
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
When I was growing up as a kid, it seemed that everyone loved Roger Moore. In fact, no one even wanted to talk about Sean Connery. He was that guy from the "old" films that weren't nearly as exciting as the new ones which Moore was in. The RM movies were always huge blockbusters.

But nowadays, it seems like Connery's films have become even more popular than Moore.

Is this true? What gives?
"Look, it's the four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche. We like: naked women, stockings, lesbians, and Sean Connery best as James Bond. Because that is what being a boy is. And if you don't like it, darling, join a film collective." (Steve from Coupling, Series 1, Episode 4)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top