Who do you prefer, Roger Moore or Daniel Craig?

[007]

Roger Moore or Daniel Craig? Two contrasting approaches to James Bond. Sir Roger for me.

[BondFan007]

Daniel Craig by far, Moore was good, but not as good as the rest.

[The Sweeney]

No comparison. Craig wins by a mile.

[ID]

Roger Moore.

[Captain Nash]

Tied.
Sir Roger was Bond when I got hooked on James Bond and therefore will always have a special place in my enjoyment of all things Bond.
But I prefer the way in which Daniel Craig plays the character.

[Robert Stirling]

Sir Roger of course. For me it's out of the question since Moore is my absolute favourite. In his portrayal the idea of Bond's "britishness" was
realized the best. Always well-dressed (by the standards of those days of course, but still I believe that no other actor does look better in tuxedo), suave and sophisticated. Sir Roger maybe not the best actor to play Hamlet, but for the role of Bond, with his charm and charisma, he fit perfectly.

He also gave the impression of being calm and self-controlled in every situation, never lost his mind. His Bond was rational rather than emotional and very perceptive, observant (in the train fight with Jaws in TSWLM when he used a lamp to electrocute his enemy or in TMWTGG where he deceived Scaramanga using his likeness, for instance. There're many more examples). Such qualities are valuable also for the real spy. Wouldn't you agree?

It's often said that Moore completely changed the image of Bond and, in fact, had nothing in common with the character described by Fleming. I'm not so sure. It's worth remembering that at the very beginning Fleming was complaining about casting Sean Connery, as he founds him less sophisticated than Bond schould be. I think that Sir Roger is the closest to the image of British gentleman that Fleming was himself.
I don't pretend to pass for a specialist in Fleming novels but, as far as I know, his Bond didn't enjoy killing people. As a professional he did so when necessary. So for me it's logical than Moore's Bond was always more willing to say sth suave to get out of trouble than to hurt sb.
When it was needed, however he was able to kill in cold blood
(e.g. Sandor in TSWLM, Locque in FYEO, the man on a tree in MR).
Despite his tongue-in-cheek approach and different than Fleming's sense of humor (which I regard as advantage) he had also his darker moments. Apart from kills mentioned above I'd list the scene in TSWLM in which Bond tells Anya that he killed her boyfriend. This is also an argument against those questioning Sir Roger's acting abilities.

And the final thing which makes Moore's films so amusing to me it's the message to the audience which is so easy to sense - 'let's have such fun watching as I had making this.'

Well, Craig? His portrayal (note Craig lovers - portrayal, not Craig himself) resemble gym trainer on steroids more than British gentleman. In CR he was primitive, arogant and egoistic. It also seemed that he like violence and enjoy killing people. As for emotions and so-called realism
I find his interest in Vesper totally unconvincing.
I've also complaints concerning his acting. Maybe I'm alone but my impression is that he was uncomfortable in suit and tux, while seemed to be perfectly relaxed in casual cloths. That's not sth I want from James Bond. Of course, there are more things but I see no point in restarting discussion about his physical apperance, so that's all from me by now.

[Skywalker]

Without question Sir Roger.

Nice post Robert.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Sir Roger vs Craig. Sir Roger was never a favorite but in this case I will go this Roger because I do not think Craig has proven himself yet.

Robert Stirling –Sir Robert - made some very good points. Good food for thought.
Roger Moore is well served by fans like you.

[carl stromberg]

Roger. I doubt anyone will make seven Bond films again.

[The Sweeney]

Roger. I doubt anyone will make seven Bond films again.

I doubt so too. Audiences won't accept aging actors playing action figures anymore. Moore really should have gone after Moonraker. By FYEO he started to look his age. This was Cubby's fault for not letting him go sooner.

4 films is enough to play Bond I think. Brosnan was starting to show his age in DAD, and Connery looked too old in DAF. Really, if the early 60's films were made in the 2 year period gaps that happened after TB, Connery should have quit after 4 films too.

[Kristatos]

4 films is enough to play Bond I think. Brosnan was starting to show his age in DAD, and Connery looked too old in DAF. Really, if the early 60's films were made in the 2 year period gaps that happened after TB, Connery should have quit after 4 films too.

He still looked good in You Only Live Twice though, even if he was phoning in his performance. If he quit after TB, it should have been because he wasn't enjoying himself any more, not because he didn't look the part. I wish they'd filmed OHMSS in '67 instead of YOLT, with Connery in the part. I think he'd have given a much better performance in that than he did in YOLT, and certainly better than Lazenby did (Connery at his worst was still a better actor than the Milk Tray man).

[Dr. No]

4 films is enough to play Bond I think. Brosnan was starting to show his age in DAD, and Connery looked too old in DAF. Really, if the early 60's films were made in the 2 year period gaps that happened after TB, Connery should have quit after 4 films too.

He still looked good in You Only Live Twice though, even if he was phoning in his performance. If he quit after TB, it should have been because he wasn't enjoying himself any more, not because he didn't look the part. I wish they'd filmed OHMSS in '67 instead of YOLT, with Connery in the part. I think he'd have given a much better performance in that than he did in YOLT, and certainly better than Lazenby did (Connery at his worst was still a better actor than the Milk Tray man).

I think the story (OHMSS) could have gotten Connery interested.

[Robert Stirling]

Audiences won't accept aging actors playing action figures anymore. Moore really should have gone after Moonraker. By FYEO he started to look his age.

You, the audience who enjoyed CR so much? Where has your appreciation for the realism gone?

Personally, I liked continuity of Moore era. As years were passing, Bond was getting older. It was logical and stressed that he isn't Superman or any other sort of almighty hero. And for me the image of ageing, experienced professional was at least equally entertaining and, what's more important, believable as this of the perfectly fit man in his mid-40s.

[The Sweeney]

4 films is enough to play Bond I think. Brosnan was starting to show his age in DAD, and Connery looked too old in DAF. Really, if the early 60's films were made in the 2 year period gaps that happened after TB, Connery should have quit after 4 films too.

He still looked good in You Only Live Twice though, even if he was phoning in his performance. If he quit after TB, it should have been because he wasn't enjoying himself any more, not because he didn't look the part. I wish they'd filmed OHMSS in '67 instead of YOLT, with Connery in the part. I think he'd have given a much better performance in that than he did in YOLT, and certainly better than Lazenby did (Connery at his worst was still a better actor than the Milk Tray man).

He still looked good in YOLT, but like I said, if this was made with the 2 year intervals, this would have been his 4th film.

And I agree, OHMSS should have been made in 67, then it would have been the ultimate 007 Connery movie.

[The Sweeney]

Audiences won't accept aging actors playing action figures anymore. Moore really should have gone after Moonraker. By FYEO he started to look his age.

You, the audience who enjoyed CR so much? Where has your appreciation for the realism gone?

Personally, I liked continuity of Moore era. As years were passing, Bond was getting older. It was logical and stressed that he isn't Superman or any other sort of almighty hero. And for me the image of ageing, experienced professional was at least equally entertaining and, what's more important, believable as this of the perfectly fit man in his mid-40s.

But this contradicts the timeless entity that Bond resides in. I always think Bond should be at his peak in the films and not too old.

We have a reference to Tracey in FYEO, which although is great to see a continuity nod, it suddenly means we start take to notice of dates and ages. Again in LTK there is a nod to Tracey, which claims she dies in 69. This means Dalton in LTK should be 10 years older than Moore was in FYEO....

This is why I never understood the uproar about continuity with CR. As far as I'm concerned, whenever I stick on a Bond film, I imagine it exists there and then. There is no past, or future....only the present. It's the only way you can enjoy them, I think. If you start to think Dalton in LTK has been in Jamaica in 1962 then it really starts to lose credibility.

[Kristatos]

We have a reference to Tracey in FYEO, which although is great to see a continuity nod, it suddenly means we start take to notice of dates and ages. Again in LTK there is a nod to Tracey, which claims she dies in 69. This means Dalton in LTK should be 10 years older than Moore was in FYEO....

This is why I never understood the uproar about continuity with CR. As far as I'm concerned, whenever I stick on a Bond film, I imagine it exists there and then. There is no past, or future....only the present. It's the only way you can enjoy them, I think. If you start to think Dalton in LTK has been in Jamaica in 1962 then it really starts to lose credibility.

That's precisely what I didn't like about the reboot. To me, the best way to deal with these continuity discrepancies is simply to ignore them. I fear that the whole "Bond 2.0" idea is going to cause more headaches down the line than it solves, though I suspect it will be quietly forgotten after Bond 22.

[BondFan007]

I think people are smarter than that.

[007]

Casino Royale is a reset for the series. Continuity in the series has never been great so it wasn't an insurmountable idea for me. The choice of actor was my main problem in the end. I just don't see him as a James Bond.

[Skywalker]

Roger. I doubt anyone will make seven Bond films again.

I doubt so too. Audiences won't accept aging actors playing action figures anymore. Moore really should have gone after Moonraker. By FYEO he started to look his age. This was Cubby's fault for not letting him go sooner.

4 films is enough to play Bond I think. Brosnan was starting to show his age in DAD, and Connery looked too old in DAF. Really, if the early 60's films were made in the 2 year period gaps that happened after TB, Connery should have quit after 4 films too.

I actually think Sir Rog is top class in all 7 movies. I understand the criticism of the films, but I don't feel they are down to RM.

In AVTAK he does look old in some clips, but the style of the film suits him and he pulls it off IMO.

[Necros]

Even Benny Hill (or Benny Hinn!!) wolud be a better Bond than Craig!!

Roger Moore is the best!!