The Sweeney wrote:FormerBondFan wrote:
The minions bash Rog and Pierce because their Bonds are lighthearted. Rog made his Bond lighthearted. As for Pierce, he wanted a darker and gritty Bond himself, but his request was denied.
Very true FBF. We may not share the same views on DC, but you are spot on with your assessment there.
Since the dark and gritty approach of Licence To Kill wasn't very well received by audiences, the producers probably decided that it was best to go back to a more balanced approach with Brosnan.
Now although I'm a fan of Roger Moore and the light-hearted Bond films, I can still understand that some people might not be into that type of humour. But then again, the overly dark approach isn't appealing to everyone either. Out of the two extremes, I would still say that it's better to go with the humorous approach, since it probably still has a wider appeal. And while there are some people who dislike Moore for his light-hearted portrayal of Bond, there are also the forum punks that just bash him religiously because they think it's the cool thing to do. One person says something insulting towards Moore, then others feel they have to join in. And when they're sick of that, then they usually move on to Brosnan.
Sean Connery even has some campy liners/moments in some of his Bond films too, especially in Diamonds Are Forever. Don't get me wrong, I like Sean Connery a lot. Connery and Moore are my most favourite Bonds, but I don't like the fact when people say that Connery has never had any silly moments. Although Moore did portray Bond more comical, he still did have moments throughout all his Bond films where he could be lethal. For Your Eyes Only is one of the best examples of this, and it shows that Moore could not only play the part humorously, but seriously as well.