RIP Roger Moore 1927 to 2017

[Kristatos]

And the irony is, even before Roger's death, his films seemed to be enjoying a more positive re-evaluation among fans in the last year or two, possibly due to a weariness with sub-Nolan grimdark.

[The Saint 007]

A bit of a Bond snob look-back of the Moore era. The writer says A View To A Kill is "somewhat depressing". Perhaps for him, but the only thing depressing about the film for me is knowing that the series would never be quite as fun and enjoyable after Moore's departure, and it's only getting worse. Then of course there's the age insult again, because we haven't heard that enough for the last 32 years and counting. Craig looks so old, haggard and out of shape, and yet there's people who still want him to keep playing Bond for umpteen more years to continue on his ridiculous storyline.

[Dalton exMI6]

RIP Roger Moore. What I admired most about Roger was how good natured he was and had no trace of that self-importance. Roger was grateful for all his successes and thought of others too that were less fortunate.

Also, Roger was a brilliant ambassador for Great Britain and always carried himself so elegantly. He was an asset to us.

Roger brought goodwill to the United Kingdom, irrespective of your culture, people could relate to Roger Moore. He crossed barriers.

We live in such a crass culture and all the more I value Roger's manners, dignity and elegance. Roger Moore could be enjoyed by all age groups and my father remembers when he was a young man coming home from work to watch The Saint.

I will say this! Considering Daniel Craig has met Roger and spoke about growing up with his films, his tribute was so lazy. Written like it took, 10 seconds. Shocking. Typical Craig and his couldn't care less attitude.

And all the lazier considering how Roger went out of his way with words to back Craggy. My father recently wrote condolences to people he knew and he would be ashamed to write something as lazy as Craig.

F@@k you Craig!!!

[acid]

A bit of a Bond snob look-back of the Moore era. The writer says A View To A Kill is "somewhat depressing". Perhaps for him, but the only thing depressing about the film for me is knowing that the series would never be quite as fun and enjoyable after Moore's departure, and it's only getting worse. Then of course there's the age insult again, because we haven't heard that enough for the last 32 years and counting. Craig looks so old, haggard and out of shape, and yet there's people who still want him to keep playing Bond for umpteen more years to continue on his ridiculous storyline.

Yeah, I'll never understand that age criticism of Moore. I mean, he was middle aged and sported a few creases on his face. So what? I personally don't think there's a huge change film to film in the way he looks and some people say he looked better in AVTAK than OP. He always looked kind of young for his age anyway. No man is going to be around 35 for very long, not even James Bond. Deal with it! What really bugs me is the double standards because there are plenty of other actors like Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis playing action roles well into their 60s and no-one bats an eyelid.

I personally think it's just people who weren't really fans of Moore using age as an easy target. Some people probably just picked up on the self deprecating things Roger said himself about his age and the increasing age gap with his on screen ladies.

[Veronica]

I seriously doubt Craig actually grew up with Moore films. If he liked them even a little bit he wouldn't have that "holier than thou" attitude he has since the start.

[dirtybenny]

A bit of a Bond snob look-back of the Moore era. The writer says A View To A Kill is "somewhat depressing". Perhaps for him, but the only thing depressing about the film for me is knowing that the series would never be quite as fun and enjoyable after Moore's departure, and it's only getting worse. Then of course there's the age insult again, because we haven't heard that enough for the last 32 years and counting. Craig looks so old, haggard and out of shape, and yet there's people who still want him to keep playing Bond for umpteen more years to continue on his ridiculous storyline.

Yeah, I'll never understand that age criticism of Moore. I mean, he was middle aged and sported a few creases on his face. So what? I personally don't think there's a huge change film to film in the way he looks and some people say he looked better in AVTAK than OP. He always looked kind of young for his age anyway. No man is going to be around 35 for very long, not even James Bond. Deal with it! What really bugs me is the double standards because there are plenty of other actors like Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis playing action roles well into their 60s and no-one bats an eyelid.

I personally think it's just people who weren't really fans of Moore using age as an easy target. Some people probably just picked up on the self deprecating things Roger said himself about his age and the increasing age gap with his on screen ladies.

What many Moore bashers seem to forget, when he finally did leave the series there was a great deal of disappointment among the fans, his age wasn't an issue. Of course I the fact his face looked more youthful at 57 then Craig did at 38 certainly helped.

I seriously doubt Craig actually grew up with Moore films. If he liked them even a little bit he wouldn't have that "holier than thou" attitude he has since the start.

Considering Craig's comment that he wanted out as soon as he was in, tells me he never was much of a Bond fan, if at all. I figure he saw Bond as a boost to his carrier and nothing more, even he must have known how wrong he was for the part. He must have felt as though he won the lottery! Without Bond, Craig would still be getting roles like "Street Thug #2" and "Second Fiddle". Now he's grown to resent the role even more and all the duties required of it.

[James]

A look back at Roger's Bond on the 007 site with the predictable usual "fashionable" views of the series. The author criticises more for being old - "visibly ageing" - in A View To a Kill, so presumably he won't be watching the next Craig Bond movie!

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/leave_them_wanting_moore.htm

Just about the only thing he forgot to say was how the one second slide whistle sound effect absolutely ruined The Man with the Golden Gun. By the way, I have nearly all the 007 Magazines printed when Brosnan was Bond and NO ONE ever raised a peep of criticism at Brosnan in them. Now of course he was apparently dreadful.

[Veronica]

A look back at Roger's Bond on the 007 site with the predictable usual "fashionable" views of the series. The author criticises more for being old - "visibly ageing" - in A View To a Kill, so presumably he won't be watching the next Craig Bond movie!

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/leave_them_wanting_moore.htm

Just about the only thing he forgot to say was how the one second slide whistle sound effect absolutely ruined The Man with the Golden Gun. By the way, I have nearly all the 007 Magazines printed when Brosnan was Bond and NO ONE ever raised a peep of criticism at Brosnan in them. Now of course he was apparently dreadful.

Well,of course,Brosnan simply has to be dreadful now. How else would Craig look so superior?

[Kristatos]

Yeah, my recollection is that Die Another Day was pretty popular with the fans when it came out. But Craigskis will swear blind that it was regarded as a franchise-killing disaster. Airstrip One is at war with Eurasia. Airstrip One has always been at war with Eurasia.

[Veronica]

Yeah, my recollection is that Die Another Day was pretty popular with the fans when it came out. But Craigskis will swear blind that it was regarded as a franchise-killing disaster. Airstrip One is at war with Eurasia. Airstrip One has always been at war with Eurasia.

As a matter of fact,some even regarded it as Brosnan's best movie or even the best Bond film ever.

[FormerBondFan]

What really bugs me is the double standards because there are plenty of other actors like Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis playing action roles well into their 60s and no-one bats an eyelid.

The only difference is that roles like Indy and McClane are designed to be like Bond, who is seen by the public as the man in his 30s/40s. Also Sir Sean played action roles well into his early 70s.

[acid]

The only difference is that roles like Indy and McClane are designed to be like Bond

How's that a difference FBF? Sounds like the same thing to me.

By the way, I really enjoy watching Sean in Last Crusade. It was awesome.

[Omega]

The difference is die hard and Indiana jones, Han Solo as well were written to have a aging actor play into being old and in working with their children and younger generation. Lethal weapon had the "getting to old for this " lines.

Where bond franchise had pretended the actors were still in their 30s. I don't think they let the actors even show much far as injuries until Dalton, or maybe it was twine were bond was injured enough not to get a mission .

It is a double standard where Roger Moore was trashed for being too old for action movies and other actors who really were over the hill were ignored .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[acid]

The difference is die hard and Indiana jones, Han Solo as well were written to have a aging actor play into being old and in working with their children and younger generation. Lethal weapon had the "getting to old for this " lines.
Where bond franchise had pretended the actors were still in their 30s.

I know it's often said Fleming imagined Bond as being about 35, but I'm struggling to think of any references to Bond's age in the pre-Craig movies (except NSNA, which is non EON). I suppose there's the PTS of FYEO where Tracy's tombstone shows 1969 and the movie is released 12 years after that - but we're really not supposed to analyze the timeline to that degree. Dates and the passage of time are deliberately glossed over in the Bond movies, which I think is a good thing as it allowed some continuity to be maintained without worrying about the fact that in the real world the stories were spanning several decades.

For the Bond character, I tend to just imagine that all his missions took place over a shorter time period, so he was on several missions per year. Yes there are things that set each movie to its present time but I don't think that really matters too much. Fleming's stories are timeless.

Yeah I thought of that Lethal Weapon line as well.

I don't think they let the actors even show much far as injuries until Dalton, or maybe it was twine were bond was injured enough not to get a mission .

Well Connery bled and looked pretty roughed up in Dr No and I remember him having a scar on another occasion and I think some other injuries. I know what you mean though. I think when we see the extent of Dalton's injuries towards the end of LTK it's a pretty striking scene, isn't it? After all, this is James Bond we are watching.

[FormerBondFan]

The only difference is that roles like Indy and McClane are designed to be like Bond

How's that a difference FBF? Sounds like the same thing to me.

By the way, I really enjoy watching Sean in Last Crusade. It was awesome.

Sorry I MEANT "are not designed to be like Bond."

[FormerBondFan]

It is a double standard where Roger Moore was trashed for being too old for action movies and other actors who really were over the hill were ignored .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Even Sir Sean was considered too old in DAF.

[acid]

The only difference is that roles like Indy and McClane are designed to be like Bond

How's that a difference FBF? Sounds like the same thing to me.

By the way, I really enjoy watching Sean in Last Crusade. It was awesome.

Sorry I MEANT "are not designed to be like Bond."

Ah thanks, that makes sense.

[Omega]

Even Sir Sean was considered too old in DAF.

Was he? He was only what 41? Roger Moore was 45-6 when he made LaLD, guess it shows how youthful he looked.
Dalton was 43 for TLD (or 41 there's two birthdays listed for him)
Brosnan was 42 for GE (?? I thought there was confusion about his birth year too)
Lazenby, Connery and Craig were the only actors to be in their 39s when cast, although Craig certainly didn't look it.

We were talking about how beat up bond got in his movies Roger Moore actually was injured making his movies he still managed to act like he wasn't hurt.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[FormerBondFan]

Was he? He was only what 41? Roger Moore was 45-6 when he made LaLD, guess it shows how youthful he looked.

Despite being 40 when he did DAF, Sir Sean was showing his age.

[shaken not stirred]

Farewell Sir Roger Moore, no one truly did it better may you be having another duel with scaramonger up there in heaven . (What a year...)