› ›

Moore vs Craig

007bond762007bond762
edited November 2012 in Actors Posts: 71
who whould be your pick.

Comments

  • AliAli
    edited November 2012 Posts: 319
    Craig. Much as I love the silliness of the better Moore films, and grew up with them (Moonraker was the 4th or 5th film I ever saw in a cinema after Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Superman and The Black Hole!), they just seem too silly nowadays. Craig's films are simply miles better.

    Plus, I can't think of Roger without remembering Spitting Image:
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    This isn't even close for me. Craig is my favorite actor in the role, while Moore is my least favorite actor in the role.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    I seem to be in the Rog minorty, where is DaltonCraig007 when you need him?!
  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    I think both of them are good Roger has better humour but Criag is better with action scenes.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited November 2012 Posts: 11,139
    Roger doesn't have better humour it's just that his era was carried and defined by it. The fact is, Roger Moore's strength was campy silliness and that's what they went with. I prefer my Bonds to offer more than continuous cheap gags. Unfortunately because such charades went on for so long it became an overbearing staple and that's what people now came to expect, which is why Dalton's movies were received in such a half arsed way. Mediocrity is not excellence. Granted, the Moore era was excellent at being mediocre for the most part and did have fun and incredible moments here and there and many people grew up with it but in the grand scheme of things, looking at the novels and how the movies initially started out, the Moore era is somewhat of a joke and an undeniable parody of the series. Fortunately, the Craig era thus far harkens back more to the more credible era's of Dalton and early Connery.
  • lahainelahaine
    Posts: 161
    Craig. Is this a joke.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,351
    Daniel Craig is my choice, here.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Tie for me. Both are different but very good.
    identigraph wrote:
    I seem to be in the Rog minorty, where is DaltonCraig007 when you need him?!

    He had an argument and seems to have left :(
    lahaine wrote:
    Craig. Is this a joke.

    What's a joke is how you can't accept that people might disagree with you.
  • TrueMiracle85TrueMiracle85
    edited November 2012 Posts: 300
    I agree with @thelivingroyale. Roger Moore's Bond has grown on me more and more throughout the years and I've enjoyed Daniel Craig's tenure since Casino Royale. So definitely a draw between the two for me.

    How about adding a poll with 3 options?
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    Posts: 546
    I enjoyed Sir Roger Moore & Daniel Craig as James Bond. But I have to go with Daniel Craig. Sir Roger Moore had charm & one of my favorite actors to play James Bond, but Daniel is more tougher, more aggressive, & more intense.
  • ChampionAlonsoChampionAlonso
    Posts: 389
    Craig is much better.
  • Sammm04Sammm04
    Posts: 479
    lahaine wrote:
    Craig. Is this a joke.
    I don't get you Moore haters, if he was so bad, then why did EON let him do 7 films, the public could have petitioned if they wanted to, proves he was popular doesn't it. you're all just overserious teenagers and young adults who don't appreciate culture of the time when moore was Bond just like people will be with Craig in 30 years, but I think both actors are great as Bond, but it is definitely Moore for me.
  • 007salfordstan007salfordstan
    Posts: 22
    lahaine wrote:
    Craig. Is this a joke.

    What he said
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Sammm04 wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    Craig. Is this a joke.
    you're all just overserious teenagers and young adults who don't appreciate culture of the time when moore was Bond just like people will be with Craig in 30 years, but I think both actors are great as Bond, but it is definitely Moore for me.

    I think that's a gross generalisation. As I mentioned in my post, Moore's movies were tailored to suit his strengths, which to be fair is far removed from how the character was originally intended and already established. The Moore era is cheesy now and was cheesy even back then and when such a product is dolled out for 12 years, it becomes common place amongst audiences. In 30 years time, I seriously doubt public/fan reactions towards Craig's movies will go the way of Moore simply because, Craig's movies are simply better. Look at early Connery, his movies came out 50 years ago and are still revered, respected and often referenced. Fact is, many people prefer a more serious take as opposed to campy silliness when it comes to Bond.

  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    Moore's movies were tailored for the time. Popular '70s cinema was a lot less gritty than '60s and that became even more prevalent after Star Wars. Hence why Moore's first two films had a darker element but that disappeared by TSWLM. They were also a bit too keen to follow trends, wrongly in the case of Moonraker, as we know. But consider this is the same decade where the likes of Jaws, Superman, Grease, Animal House, The Towering Inferno, The Cannonball Run, Blazing Saddles and Smokey & the Bandit were all pervading. That Bond remained popular enough to compete means they did something right. The problem with Roger is he went on for two movies too long IMO. It's detracted from his legacy. Connery is lucky most people forget about NSNA....
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    The minority isn't a bad place to be in. The company is much more exclusive. I'm a fan of Daniel Craig, and I greatly respect his tenure as Bond so far, especially after the ridiculous amount of stick he received from the press before they had shot a single scene of Casino Royale. That being said, it all comes down to personal preference, and I seem to prefer a tad more escapism in my Bond films. I think I admire the sophistication and elegance in Movie Bond, more than the harder edge, grittier approach.

    That places me firmly in the minority on this site. I prefer a slightly lighter touch with flashes of darkness, over a heavier touch with flashes of light. That doesn't mean I don't think the Moore Era sometimes went too far, or that I can't appreciate the various facets of Bond's personality that Craig has managed to explore and display, it's just, there are times when I want to disengage my brain and be swept away to a more glamorous place, to enjoy an adventure which I know is hokum, but I care not a jot.

    Sometimes, just sometimes, this drab old world, with all its various shades of grey, needs a flash of James Bond suavity, and, dare I say it, a twinkle in the eye beneath a raised eyebrow. There's nothing wrong with that, surely? I'm not asking for those days to return, I just wish to enjoy them in the little, perfectly preserved, bubble that they were made in.

    Whisper it quietly, but: it is okay to prefer Rog.
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Jones_The_Bond wrote:
    The minority isn't a bad place to be in. The company is much more exclusive. I'm a fan of Daniel Craig, and I greatly respect his tenure as Bond so far, especially after the ridiculous amount of stick he received from the press before they had shot a single scene of Casino Royale. That being said, it all comes down to personal preference, and I seem to prefer a tad more escapism in my Bond films. I think I admire the sophistication and elegance in Movie Bond, more than the harder edge, grittier approach.

    That places me firmly in the minority on this site. I prefer a slightly lighter touch with flashes of darkness, over a heavier touch with flashes of light. That doesn't mean I don't think the Moore Era sometimes went too far, or that I can't appreciate the various facets of Bond's personality that Craig has managed to explore and display, it's just, there are times when I want to disengage my brain and be swept away to a more glamorous place, to enjoy an adventure which I know is hokum, but I care not a jot.

    Sometimes, just sometimes, this drab old world, with all its various shades of grey, needs a flash of James Bond suavity, and, dare I say it, a twinkle in the eye beneath a raised eyebrow. There's nothing wrong with that, surely? I'm not asking for those days to return, I just wish to enjoy them in the little, perfectly preserved, bubble that they were made in.

    Whisper it quietly, but: it is okay to prefer Rog.
    This is one of the best posts I have ever read here. Well said, mate.

  • Dalton12Dalton12
    Posts: 1,107
    Jones_The_Bond wrote:
    The minority isn't a bad place to be in. The company is much more exclusive. I'm a fan of Daniel Craig, and I greatly respect his tenure as Bond so far, especially after the ridiculous amount of stick he received from the press before they had shot a single scene of Casino Royale. That being said, it all comes down to personal preference, and I seem to prefer a tad more escapism in my Bond films. I think I admire the sophistication and elegance in Movie Bond, more than the harder edge, grittier approach.

    That places me firmly in the minority on this site. I prefer a slightly lighter touch with flashes of darkness, over a heavier touch with flashes of light. That doesn't mean I don't think the Moore Era sometimes went too far, or that I can't appreciate the various facets of Bond's personality that Craig has managed to explore and display, it's just, there are times when I want to disengage my brain and be swept away to a more glamorous place, to enjoy an adventure which I know is hokum, but I care not a jot.

    Sometimes, just sometimes, this drab old world, with all its various shades of grey, needs a flash of James Bond suavity, and, dare I say it, a twinkle in the eye beneath a raised eyebrow. There's nothing wrong with that, surely? I'm not asking for those days to return, I just wish to enjoy them in the little, perfectly preserved, bubble that they were made in.

    Whisper it quietly, but: it is okay to prefer Rog.
    Great post.I actually prefer Moore but i have nothing against Craig.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,911
    Moore. I may not be the greatest fan of his era as a whole, but I can appreciate that he gave us a different kind of Bond.

    And for what's worth, I have grown to like FYEO.
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    I mainly like FYEO because I once went to Meteora on holiday, so everytime I see the movie, I shout out "been there"....
  • JimThompson45JimThompson45
    Posts: 803
    Ali wrote:
    I mainly like FYEO because I once went to Meteora on holiday, so everytime I see the movie, I shout out "been there"....
    I feel like that every time I see the casino scene in Goldeneye. :)

  • lahainelahaine
    Posts: 161
    Moore seems like a nice man and his Book Bond on Bond was a good read but he was Austin Powers before Mike Meyers for me. Everything wrong with Bond films began with his films too many one jokey liners, him making Bond look like a pervy Uncle at a wedding and far too light and not enough darkness for my liking. Yes maybe thats what the audience wanted at that time but they haven't aged well.

    Bond needs to be kick ass as well as suave Connery, Dalton and Craig got it right on the button but Moore and Brosnan were too suave no enough kick ass.

  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    I definitley prefer the Rog but I have no issues with Craig, he is going for a different take and of course he should, there would be no point in playing it the same as someone else.
  • JohnBarryFanJohnBarryFan
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,405
    Sir Roger left us a rich legacy. Sure, some of Sir Roger Bond movie were, say, too light or silly for the taste of some "hardcore" Bond fan. However he never was a disgrace for the franchise and left it, as M would say, in as good a shape as he entered it. Everytime he played Bond, Moore gave everything he had, and that cannot be said of some of his collegue, Sean Connery being the first that comes to mind.

    Daniel Craig came after a desastrous Brosnan tenure. DAD despaired many long time Bond fans, and the inking of Craig to play the role was not well recevied. He had a tremendous slope to climb back. Boy, did he flew over the slope! As I already mentionned in another post, Casino Royale hit me like a ton of bricks. Craig is more ruthless and physical than Moore's Bond. Sir Roger is more cerebral, subtle, his Bond has more finesse. It's depend on what your tastes are.

    I like my Bond more physical, more intense, even if I can enjoy Moore's performance "to the fullest" like Bloefeld would say.

    So l like Craig more, but still deeply appreciate Sir Roger work.

  • lahainelahaine
    Posts: 161
    JohnBarryFan wrote:
    Sir Roger left us a rich legacy. Sure, some of Sir Roger Bond movie were, say, too light or silly for the taste of some "hardcore" Bond fan. However he never was a disgrace for the franchise and left it, as M would say, in as good a shape as he entered it. Everytime he played Bond, Moore gave everything he had, and that cannot be said of some of his collegue, Sean Connery being the first that comes to mind.

    Daniel Craig came after a desastrous Brosnan tenure. DAD despaired many long time Bond fans, and the inking of Craig to play the role was not well recevied. He had a tremendous slope to climb back. Boy, did he flew over the slope! As I already mentionned in another post, Casino Royale hit me like a ton of bricks. Craig is more ruthless and physical than Moore's Bond. Sir Roger is more cerebral, subtle, his Bond has more finesse. It's depend on what your tastes are.

    I like my Bond more physical, more intense, even if I can enjoy Moore's performance "to the fullest" like Bloefeld would say.

    So l like Craig more, but still deeply appreciate Sir Roger work.

    I think you hit it on the head for me with you're last two lines. I just like my Bond more physical and more intense as Moore said himself in his commentries on his Bond films that he wasn't comfortable with the violence watch him in the scene in TMWTGG when he twists Adam's arm and slaps her he looks so uncomfortable. I just find it hard watching Moore films after Craig's Casino royale they all look so tame and uninteresting apart from the odd few.
  • EllisEllis
    Posts: 224
    Roger Moore. His light humor and romance sets him apart from Daniel Craig's more serious approach. Rog made Bond more charming, elegant and endearing than any other other actor playing the role. Does that mean that I don't like Daniel Craig in the role? Of course not. I simply like and enjoy Roger's style more.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Goldeneye95 wrote:
    I enjoyed Sir Roger Moore & Daniel Craig as James Bond. But I have to go with Daniel Craig. Sir Roger Moore had charm & one of my favorite actors to play James Bond, but Daniel is more tougher, more aggressive, & more intense.

    Nice, that sums up my feelings perfectly.

    Sammm04 wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    Craig. Is this a joke.
    I don't get you Moore haters, if he was so bad, then why did EON let him do 7 films, the public could have petitioned if they wanted to, proves he was popular doesn't it. you're all just overserious teenagers and young adults who don't appreciate culture of the time when moore was Bond just like people will be with Craig in 30 years, but I think both actors are great as Bond, but it is definitely Moore for me.

    I am far from a Moore hater, but as an original fan from 1968 to today I am certainly very familiar with each and every era. And quite simply, I enjoy the more serious portrayals of Connery's original run, Dalton, and now Craig to the era of sight and sound gags. Sir Roger is pure fun and entertainment and I have a special spot for all his films save MR, but at best he comes in 4th, ahead of only Lazenby and Brosnan in my world.

Sign In or Register to comment.