Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 16, 2021 16:16:24 GMT
Bond is, and always has been always will be, camp. The original Fleming novels might be described as 'the higher camp', and the films more as the lowest-common-denominator camp...and Batman was pointedly designed to be camp from its inception. But Susan Sontag would have been the first to recognize that no matter who played 007, campiness was the raison d'etre of the whole franchise. Woah woah calm down Easter bunny. Do you know what camp is? Camp is not to be confused with fun. Lots of users on this thread using the term rather stupidly like a baby discovering the word "poo". Bond is fun.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 16, 2021 16:43:34 GMT
It’s a fair comparison. His movies were generally sillier and more comedic than most of the other Bond incarnations.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 16, 2021 16:51:40 GMT
It’s a fair comparison. His movies were generally sillier and more comedic than most of the other Bond incarnations. But compared to what? There is a much bigger gap in silliness between the '60s Batman to Batman 89 than there is between the Connery and Moore era Bond movies, especially when you have that era ending with the not only silly, but stupid Diamonds Are Forever.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 16, 2021 17:38:16 GMT
Batman was created as a comic book character for kids, while James Bond was (I assume) men's adventure fiction genre.
I always felt James Bond was like a tuxedo-wearing superhero in the Moore era. But they both have the same thing in common which is not taking heroism seriously. The Batman comics were not all jokes. The Joker killed a judge in his first story.
It's much worse in Batman the series--he has the costume and it's meant to be cartoonish. The Connery era also has some of that comedy. The names of characters are meant to take you out of the story and chuckle.
Camp is applied to things where it does not apply. Flash Gordon was not camp-they made it camp in the 1980 movie. But Camp is also like the MST3K crew--to them any serious low budget sci-fi movie is camp. The view is "this is silly even though the filmmakers didn't know it."
That's Sontag's definition--for her, an adventure story cannot be serious--she cannot suspend disbelief for that. It's not meant for her though. She's not the audience for it. The producer of Batman-who did the narration-he could not take Batman seriously--yet he could take the Green Hornet seriously. That was more serious and a standard action story series.
|
|
|
Post by dwightmachinehead on Jun 16, 2021 20:52:03 GMT
Nah, Adam West is more off the chart.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 16, 2021 23:06:31 GMT
You can't get any more ridiculous and jump the shark than the modern Bond era. It's totally gods vs. demi gods vs. mortals like never before. That's the real way it's evolved, but no one dares to say that, because no one but me dares to believe that no human is a demi god.
Roger Moore era made it more witty, and that made it so we didn't take it seriously. The modern era is retarded, because they do take the exact same things seriously that Moore's Bond films just did in jest.
Same for Batman. No one took it serious from the Adam West show. Comical "kapow" fist fights. In fact, there was less shark jumping than in any of the later ridiculous Batman movies.
So, if you're saying that they weren't nearly as retarded as modern day Batman and Bond movies, I'll agree, but Batman was total comedy, but Moore got to be in what is undeniably the best of the Bond movies (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME consistently and deservedly gets the nod for the best Bond film ever). The spectacle, adventure, babes, scenery, wit, everything was at its peak in the Moore era. Look at the classics that are in any serious top ten Bond list: The Spy Who Loved me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy. Even the sillier ones with the red neck sheriff were entertaining and full of great Bond elements. You can't say that about the dull unwatchable drudgery of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, movies that are impossible to stay awake through, and which are muddled messes of incoherent garble, so bad in fact that only the most die hard fans would watch the later Bond movies.
If anything, Craig's Bond movies look more like West's Batman series, in being incoherent garble, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 16, 2021 23:19:55 GMT
I've always felt this way, do you agree with this? Not really, but I can certainly sympathize with anyone who feels that way. I loved his work in THE SAINT and THE PERSUADERS... along with several films. However, as an avid reader and fan of the Ian Fleming classics, I never thought he was a good pick for James Bond.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 17, 2021 0:39:16 GMT
Movie critic Gene Siskel never liked Roger Moore as Bond.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 17, 2021 0:41:01 GMT
Movie critic Gene Siskel never liked Roger Moore as Bond. That's about as good an endorsement as one can get that Moore was a great Bond
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 17, 2021 0:52:02 GMT
The Moore films are superior in terms of repeat viewings with regards to the Bond franchise. Connery comes close. The Craig films take themselves and the character too seriously in my opinion although I think the only truly bad Bond film was probably Die Another Day.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jun 17, 2021 0:56:18 GMT
I’ve been saying this for years.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 17, 2021 1:00:37 GMT
I've always felt this way, do you agree with this? Not really, but I can certainly sympathize with anyone who feels that way. I loved his work in THE SAINT and THE PERSUADERS... along with several films. However, as an avid reader and fan of the Ian Fleming classics, I never thought he was a good pick for James Bond. No, Roger was a good pick. He had too much of a good sense of humour to be anything but. I don't know how boring you guys are in the Australian outback but here in the West we love humour. Maybe it's the desert rat attitude you have.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 17, 2021 1:01:40 GMT
The Moore films are superior in terms of repeat viewings with regards to the Bond franchise. Connery comes close. The Craig films take themselves and the character too seriously in my opinion although I think the only truly bad Bond film was probably Die Another Day. The hovercraft scene was the best opening scene in any Bond film.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 17, 2021 1:13:49 GMT
The Moore films are superior in terms of repeat viewings with regards to the Bond franchise. Connery comes close. The Craig films take themselves and the character too seriously in my opinion although I think the only truly bad Bond film was probably Die Another Day. You're not one of those morons that were baffled by the invisible Aston Martin were you?
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 17, 2021 1:59:12 GMT
Not really, but I can certainly sympathize with anyone who feels that way. I loved his work in THE SAINT and THE PERSUADERS... along with several films. However, as an avid reader and fan of the Ian Fleming classics, I never thought he was a good pick for James Bond. No, Roger was a good pick. He had too much of a good sense of humour to be anything but. I don't know how boring you guys are in the Australian outback but here in the West we love humour. Maybe it's the desert rat attitude you have. That's simply your opinion on the matter, just as my previous post was just my opinion on the matter. And needless to say, no, I think you're mistaken. I think Roger Moore was an inappropriate pick for that particular role. However, you're quite right about him having a good sense of humour, which is one of the reasons why he was such an inappropriate choice for the role. With rare exceptions, his era as James Bond was far too campy and silly to be taken seriously as James Bond. As a result, it was a far cry from the true essence of what I think James Bond should be. Oh... and I don't know how ignorant a guy like you is, but Aussies are famous for their love of humour and they also happen to be part of the Western World. But don't take my word for it... google it for yourself. Or maybe the anti-social behaviour you display is just a result of the lost of your empire.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jun 17, 2021 2:12:46 GMT
No, Roger was a good pick. He had too much of a good sense of humour to be anything but. I don't know how boring you guys are in the Australian outback but here in the West we love humour. Maybe it's the desert rat attitude you have. That's simply your opinion on the matter, just as my previous post was just my opinion on the matter. And needless to say, no, I think you're mistaken. I think Roger Moore was an inappropriate pick for that particular role. However, you're quite right about him having a good sense of humour, which is one of the reasons why he was such an inappropriate choice for the role. With rare exceptions, his era as James Bond was far too campy and silly to be taken seriously as James Bond. As a result, it was a far cry from the true essence of what I think James Bond should be. Oh... and I don't know how ignorant a guy like you is, but Aussies are famous for their love of humour and they also happen to be part of the Western World. But don't take my word for it... google it for yourself. Or maybe the anti-social behaviour you display is just a result of the lost of your empire. Your idea of Bond was a young Sam Neill who was a nervous wreck during his Bond audition, a nervous inexperienced virgin about to have sex for the first time on mission. Roger gave Bond personality and Antmac I've seen you attempt what you think is humour on the politics forum and I think you need some Roger tips. Roger was comfortable in his own skin and wasn't a tryhard clown.
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Jun 17, 2021 2:28:06 GMT
I wouldn't go quite as far to equate Moore's Bond with West's Batman... but I will say that MOONRAKER is nothing but a cheesy Dean Martin-Matt Helm movie -- only with a much more lavish budget and far superior production values.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Jun 17, 2021 2:43:08 GMT
That's simply your opinion on the matter, just as my previous post was just my opinion on the matter. And needless to say, no, I think you're mistaken. I think Roger Moore was an inappropriate pick for that particular role. However, you're quite right about him having a good sense of humour, which is one of the reasons why he was such an inappropriate choice for the role. With rare exceptions, his era as James Bond was far too campy and silly to be taken seriously as James Bond. As a result, it was a far cry from the true essence of what I think James Bond should be. Oh... and I don't know how ignorant a guy like you is, but Aussies are famous for their love of humour and they also happen to be part of the Western World. But don't take my word for it... google it for yourself. Or maybe the anti-social behaviour you display is just a result of the lost of your empire. Your idea of Bond was a young Sam Neill who was a nervous wreck during his Bond audition, a nervous inexperienced virgin about to have sex for the first time on mission. Roger gave Bond personality and Antmac I've seen you attempt what you think is humour on the politics forum and I think you need some Roger tips. Roger was comfortable in his own skin and wasn't a tryhard clown. He looked perfectly fine to me in the audition. Of course, as most reasonable people would probably know, there's a big difference between an initial audition and the actual main production. Once an actor has actually been selected for a job, he or she can relax and focus on getting into the role. Yes, Roger Moore did bring a lot of his own personality to the role of James Bond, just as he did for many of his other roles. Unfortunately, with James Bond, it was not quite as appropriate or successful as it had been with certain other roles. And I think you need to remember that a sense of humour can vary, not just from one country to another, but also from one individual to another. Although who in their right mind would actually believe they can judge the many and varied senses of humour of an entire nation, after a limited number of interactions with a small number of individuals on an internet forum? PS - As for being a tryhard clown, I'm sure you're quite experienced in that field.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 17, 2021 2:46:52 GMT
Moore seemed the most comfortable in the role, for sure. Connery was more edgy--that is why I feel Moore presented the character as a superhero image. Everything was under control with him. He could have done it like the Wild Geese character if he wanted to.
On another forum someone mentioned his Sherlock Holmes film which I need to check out--and said he is a bad actor--but I don't think that's true. He's a neurotic character in The Man Who Haunted Himself. That's a very anti-James Bond character and Ffolkes is as well.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 17, 2021 3:23:54 GMT
You can't get any more ridiculous and jump the shark than the modern Bond era. It's totally gods vs. demi gods vs. mortals like never before. That's the real way it's evolved, but no one dares to say that, because no one but me dares to believe that no human is a demi god. Roger Moore era made it more witty, and that made it so we didn't take it seriously. The modern era is retarded, because they do take the exact same things seriously that Moore's Bond films just did in jest. Same for Batman. No one took it serious from the Adam West show. Comical "kapow" fist fights. In fact, there was less shark jumping than in any of the later ridiculous Batman movies. So, if you're saying that they weren't nearly as retarded as modern day Batman and Bond movies, I'll agree, but Batman was total comedy, but Moore got to be in what is undeniably the best of the Bond movies (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME consistently and deservedly gets the nod for the best Bond film ever). The spectacle, adventure, babes, scenery, wit, everything was at its peak in the Moore era. Look at the classics that are in any serious top ten Bond list: The Spy Who Loved me, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy. Even the sillier ones with the red neck sheriff were entertaining and full of great Bond elements. You can't say that about the dull unwatchable drudgery of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, movies that are impossible to stay awake through, and which are muddled messes of incoherent garble, so bad in fact that only the most die hard fans would watch the later Bond movies. If anything, Craig's Bond movies look more like West's Batman series, in being incoherent garble, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.I don't agree with you there. Casino Royale is routinely regarded as one of the best Bond films ever made. Skyfall is also pretty good. Are there as fun as Roger Moore's films? Maybe not, but to say they're like the Adam West Batman series is completing missing the mark. There's more character development in Craig's first two films than in Roger Moore's Bond films put together. We see a brash, young rookie 00 agent learn what it means to trust, and when his heart is broken, he turns to full-on rage to try to heal what's broken inside. After several years, he slowly transforms into the traditional James Bond archetype we are familiar with. Yes, there are some dumb moments in Craig's films like the awful editing in Quantum of Solace and Blofeld being his step-brother, but none of Craig's lows are as low as some embarrassing moments during Roger Moore's run. Like Bond gives a sumo wrestler a wedgie and a slide whistle is inserted during an impressive car stunt; all of them were featured in The Man with the Golden Gun.
|
|