POLL: Roger Moore vs Pierce Brosnan

[Count_Lippe]

[Dr. No]

I appreciate Roger Moore but I am in the Brosnan camp. He was the first Bond I saw in the movies and I like his take on Bond better than most of the other actors.

I hope Moore's fans chime in making this a real race because he did a lot of the franchise.

[The Saint 007]

Roger Moore for me. Moore and Connery were the Bonds that got me interested in the series as a kid, and are the ones I enjoy watching the most.

[Dr. No]

Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, I could watch them any day of the week.

[Count_Lippe]

I think Roger had more authority as Bond, whereas Pierce seemed lighter and not as good as he should have been.

I don't know what went wrong when Pierce played Bond, but to me he never became Bond he just tried to be Bond.

And of course that his films were all mediocre didn't exactly help.

[Veronica]

I think Roger had more authority as Bond, whereas Pierce seemed lighter and not as good as he should have been.

I don't know what went wrong when Pierce played Bond, but to me he never became Bond he just tried to be Bond.

And of course that his films were all mediocre didn't exactly help.

Pierce seemed lighter? You do understand this Roger Moore we are talking about? His movies all mediocre? The only movies that are actually good from Moore era(IMO) are FYEO and TSWLM.And FYEO isn't really that memorable. It astonishes me that you can say how Pierce was lighter. Moore dressed as a clown imitated tarzan and what not. Of course that isn't necessarily a bad thing but Moore is easily the lightest Bond. Brosnan had cold blooded moments that really make your heart stop.
Moore is fun and entertaining and debonair and all but he can't hold a candle to Pierce who easily potrayed the most well-rounded Bond. Plus Pierce IMO is by far the most Bond like.

[The Saint 007]

Moore dressed as a clown imitated tarzan and what not.

The Tarzan yell is one thing, but the clown disguise was practical given the situation Bond was in. The scene wasn't played for laughs, and it was one of the more tense moments of the series, in my opinion. Remember that 009 was also disguised as a clown in the beginning of the film, and Bond later finds himself in the same situation. I guess the only real criticism is how fast he got into the disguise, but this is the same Bond who went to space, so I can sort of side with it.

[Veronica]

Moore dressed as a clown imitated tarzan and what not.

The Tarzan yell is one thing, but the clown disguise was practical given the situation Bond was in. The scene wasn't played for laughs, and it was one of the more tense moments of the series, in my opinion. Remember that 009 was also disguised as a clown in the beginning of the film, and Bond later finds himself in the same situation. I guess the only real criticism is how fast he got into the disguise, but this is the same Bond who went to space, so I can sort of side with it.

To be perfectly honest I was semi-asleep through Octopussy but still...even Roger Moore said he thought the clown thing was too much.

[Barry Niven]

Roger Moore all the way. Though I concede Sean Connery IS the Coolest, it was Moore's effortless charm and Elder-Statesman likeability that turned me onto the movies, to the point where I thought he was the only James Bond for a while (until I caught myself up on the history to know better and accept BOTH Connery & Moore as near-equals, but that's beside the point).

But in all honesty, Pierce Brosnan never came alive for me, no matter how much all the media hype was building him up as the "Best Bond Since Connery" or "At Least Better Than Moore" in his time. And that was where the point was: Brosnan was anointed as Bond without having to actually earn it, which always struck me as the worst example of the "informed attributes" way-of-thinking. As if he made it to the top of the mountain and felt like he didn't have to do anything to stay there.

It also didn't help that Brosnan was practically a rerun of Moore in the sense that both were groomed for the role of Bond after starring in TV series with similar characters (Moore as The Saint vs. Brosnan as Remington Steele), except that Moore did it first - and better- which left Brosnan looking rather inadequate as a result. Particularly when Brosnan's four Bond movies were the equivalent of a Big, Shiny, Beautiful Luxury Car with no engine inside of it.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

While neither come close to the #1 spot, Moore at least took the role in a clear direction. Brosnan, on the other hand, fell back on tired cliches for 7 years and failed to get a proper grasp of the role. Moore vs Brosnan? Moore wins.

[Veronica]

The fact that he became famous through Remington Steele has nothing to do with his potrayal. Moore in all honesty never acted. His Bond was what Moore was in real life. So is "The Saint". I'm not saying that's bad because Moore is very likeable and all..but Brosnan can do diversity while I'm not sure Moore can. Moore often took me to the point were I was shaking my head at some silliness and believe I can cope with silly. Yes Brosnan was nailed as "the best since Connery" and quite rightfully so. That's not really suprising since even before he got the role he was voted in polls as "the next Bond". I think we should think more about some people claiming Craig is "the best since Connery" since that is just absurd. Brosnan persuaded me that he was both a killer and a lover. Moore did only one of those things. Look,I don't take Moore seriously and that's pretty much the reason while I'm cool with him.


P.S. tired cliches? Whatever the problem you have with his moviebit obviously wasn't Brosnan's deed. He always gave his all

[The Sweeney]

Moore for me all the way.

I actually think Brosnan is the weakest out of all the actors to play Bond, mainly because there is not much I can like about the films he appeared in, which mostly appeared cheesy, as though he was morphing into Moore in many scenes.

Although Moore also had very cheesy moments in his movies, he did it first, and I still have a fondness for many of his films - LALD, TMWTGG, parts of MR and FYEO.

[Count_Lippe]

Do check out Roger Moore in The Persuaders also, great classic TV series from 1970 that unfortunately only lasted one season. It was released on bluray 2-3 years ago in excellent restored HD quality.

Roger is fantastic in this one, and it's easy to see why he was the obvious choice to be the new 007 at the time.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvuuAUJ2x6I[/video]

[ml94]

Pierce.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

P.S. tired cliches? Whatever the problem you have with his moviebit obviously wasn't Brosnan's deed. He always gave his all

That doesn't matter when he did nothing with the role. Brosnan might have been giddily excited to have been playing the same character that Connery had played years earlier, that he forgot to devise his own take on the role.

[Barry Niven]

P.S. tired cliches? Whatever the problem you have with his moviebit obviously wasn't Brosnan's deed. He always gave his all

That doesn't matter when he did nothing with the role. Brosnan might have been giddily excited to have been playing the same character that Connery had played years earlier, that he forgot to devise his own take on the role.

Precisely. Because Brosnan was so "perfect" in that he looked, acted, and fit the part to a tee, it also made him completely BORING as there was nothing else there to make him as unique or distinctive from any of the previous Four Bond actors, given their respective "flaws" that they compensated for in their own ways. As a result, Brosnan always came across as too bland, smug and poncey for his own good.

And for that, I just didn't like him no matter how much I tried for the sake of it being a James Bond movie and how We're All Supposed to Accept Him As The Greatest Since Connery And Better Than Moore, which always made rewatching Brosnan's Bonds an ordeal of self-deluding hypocrisy for me to endure and be ashamed of when it was over. That's why I hardly ever revisit that era of excess while I can happily tune in to any of Connery & Moore's Bonds to cheer me up.

Remember, Moore didn't exactly have the greatest scripts to work with either, and that didn't stop him from rising above it with his charm and wit. So why should Brosnan keep getting a free pass for lousy scripts that "stifled" his ability to be Taken Seriously As A Real Actor? Either he has *it* or he doesn't.

About the only positive thing I can say about Brosnan was that he was better than the Craggy. But better doesn't necessarily mean GOOD, which neither of them are as far as I'm concerned. Just as I don't have to "support" Brosnan just to spite Craggy, which is bull$#!+ as I find them both equally dubious. At least, that's how I see it.

[The Sweeney]

P.S. tired cliches? Whatever the problem you have with his moviebit obviously wasn't Brosnan's deed. He always gave his all

That doesn't matter when he did nothing with the role. Brosnan might have been giddily excited to have been playing the same character that Connery had played years earlier, that he forgot to devise his own take on the role.

Precisely. Because Brosnan was so "perfect" in that he looked, acted, and fit the part to a tee, it also made him completely BORING as there was nothing else there to make him as unique or distinctive from any of the previous Four Bond actors, given their respective "flaws" that they compensated for in their own ways. As a result, Brosnan always came across as too bland, smug and poncey for his own good.

And for that, I just didn't like him no matter how much I tried for the sake of it being a James Bond movie and how We're All Supposed to Accept Him As The Greatest Since Connery And Better Than Moore, which always made rewatching Brosnan's Bonds an ordeal of self-deluding hypocrisy for me to endure and be ashamed of when it was over. That's why I hardly ever revisit that era of excess while I can happily tune in to any of Connery & Moore's Bonds to cheer me up.

Remember, Moore didn't exactly have the greatest scripts to work with either, and that didn't stop him from rising above it with his charm and wit. So why should Brosnan keep getting a free pass for lousy scripts that "stifled" his ability to be Taken Seriously As A Real Actor? Either he has *it* or he doesn't.

About the only positive thing I can say about Brosnan was that he was better than the Craggy. But better doesn't necessarily mean GOOD, which neither of them are as far as I'm concerned. Just as I don't have to "support" Brosnan just to spite Craggy, which is bull$#!+ as I find them both equally dubious. At least, that's how I see it.

Well said, Barry. We may not see eye to eye on Craig, but we definitely do on Brosnan's take on Bond.....

[Count_Lippe]

I do think Pierce Brosnan could have been a good James Bond, it's a bit puzzling why his performance as 007 was so bland and lacked character.

I really liked his performance in The Fourth Protocol (1987), I even saw it in the theater at the time, this is much better than his Bond portrayal.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRLZYnGQxPc[/video]

[Veronica]

P.S. tired cliches? Whatever the problem you have with his moviebit obviously wasn't Brosnan's deed. He always gave his all

That doesn't matter when he did nothing with the role. Brosnan might have been giddily excited to have been playing the same character that Connery had played years earlier, that he forgot to devise his own take on the role.

Oh,lord.What else was there to "bring"?Dalton did some kind of seriousness after Roger Moore played it all for laughs and of course Connery is a standard Bond with his charisma and all.Brosnan brought all that together.He was as ruthless as he could be charming.He could do one-liners.He is charismatic and sophisticated,elegant...he just had it all.What could he bring to the table?He brought to the table things that make the most well-rounded Bond.Giddy?A little child is giddy.Yes,he was honored and happy...and what's exactly wrong with that?Please,don't tell me anything about bringing to the table.You are a guy(I presume you are since you put Brosnan on 5th place and no woman would ever put him lower than 3rd) who put Lazenby above anyone else and most importantly Lazenby BEFORE CONNERY!It's like saying Nicki Minaj is better than Beatles!

[Veronica]

I do think Pierce Brosnan could have been a good James Bond, it's a bit puzzling why his performance as 007 was so bland and lacked character.

I really liked his performance in The Fourth Protocol (1987), I even saw it in the theater at the time, this is much better than his Bond portrayal.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRLZYnGQxPc[/video]

I don't think his performance is bland or lacked the character...there were many little things that you could learn about his Bond between the lines as well.