As much as I love Sir Roger as an actor, humanitarian and human being, I was consistently disappointed in the tone of his Bond films---while enjoying bits of all of them---as I'm ever a FlemingistTM, and was never happy about the disconnect from the books' spirit and intent in the '70s through the mid-'80s. He had some fine moments in the role, but the increasingly broad, 'dinner theatre'-style humour did alienate me.
As ever, though, props to Sir Rog for keeping Bond successful :007)
You speak for me here as well.
I may not be quite the "Flemingist" as some others, but as a huge Bond fan going back to the mid 60's the Roger Moore era became the "lost" Bond years for me. Not that I completely disliked all the Moore films (I religiously went to see them all in the theater) but I was really marking time until Roger stepped down and EON came back to their senses and got themselves a "real" Bond and started making more serious Bond films again.
{[] I never missed a Bond film on the big screen...ever. But by the time OP and and AVTAK came out, the cringes (for me) outweighed the triumphs by a good-Godly margin.
Cheers to anyone who prefers him! Not my cup of tea.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
When Moore was being particularly smart or cleaver
I don't want to do a hatchet job, but that would be in any scenes involving a chopper? Such as in Axe View To Axe Kill? ;%
Well...that's a rather cutting remark
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Getting back to the original question, why do non fans seem to hate the Moore era? My experience has been almost the opposite; many of the casual fans or non fans I know love the Moore era and really disliked the Dalton films, especially if they are of an age where the only exposure to the Connery films was on pre cable network TV. To so many of those folks, Moore and his films defined Bond for them and their expectation of a Bond film.
I think this question also needs to look at the generational aspect of the Bond phenomena. New, younger fans like Millennials have greater access and exposure to the entire library and actually have the most objective chance to review each film and Bond actor outside of their immediate cultural context; the paradox, is that some of these fans to their credit take into account the cultural context, while many do not...so it's from these younger fans who have opinions that I, as an older fan, find interesting in the least, sometimes intriguing and occasionally, bizarre. To their credit, many recognize the cultural impact of Connery's fan and manage to "see" it for themselves.
But going to the other end of the generational spectrum... Based on my personal conversations with casual, i.e., "non-diehard" fans through the decades, namely older relatives, friends, classmates, school peers, etc., those who either were around for the Connery era or who grew up with Moore as the Bond of the moment, with consensus recount how Connery just nailed it. In fact, it wasn’t a matter of Connery being the actor who nailed it because all of these people I know/knew don’t have the Bond books for reference; all they know is that this guy named Connery was James Bond and during the 60’s he was the coolest thing since Elvis and Sputnik. It was just unfortunate that in the minds of these fans, Moore had a tough act to follow. Interestingly, many of these casual fans were not aware or totally forgot the “in-between” Bond (Lazenby) and even the more recent Dalton Bond.
Then…returning to the present, there’s this debate about the best Bond ever as AJB members occasionally contend, primarily using box office statistics…which is a good start. However, as mentioned I think the cultural contexts need to be accounted for, including the differences in socio-economic profiles of film-goers, movie distribution since the 60s (esp. the rise of the multiplex), the evolution of movie genres (Bond imitators no longer relegated to TV and now rival or eclipse Bond movies). Based on box office returns, people make a leap that Craig surpassed Connery as the “best Bond.” Tapping into that pool of “casual fans” who were around in the Connery era, they could not tell you enough how a big deal he was and how wide the impact he made across demographic lines. Whereas today, as big a draw the Craig Bonds are/were, I contend that he is merely a popular draw among many, many other choices for the action blockbuster movie fan’s ticket dollar. Case in point, compare the public concern when Connnery quit the first time around to today, on the cusp of a new Bond casting (and the end of the Craig era). I particularly did not feel the ground shake and I don’t really see this a headline news that the public is loosing sleep over to resolve. So, any other Bond other than Connery, will only be second to Connery at best and worse, will be totally forgotten by “non-fans.”
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
These reads as an increasingly strange thread, providing an opportunity for those who don't like Moore (fair enough) to say that they don't like Moore. I don't think there's been much challenge to the original question: why do non-Bond fans dislike the Moore era?
So - first basic question: what's the definition of "non-Bond fans", particularly given the fact that the key reference is to someone watching ALL the films. Doesn't that make them a Bond fan?
But then that argument - even if you accept it - is in effect magnified without much justification to encompass all non-Bond fans. Did I miss the evidence base for that?
Like many people here i read a lot of articles about Bond and the journalists (are they Bond fans or non-Bond fans) sometimes don't like Moore and sometimes love him. If anything, by and large his popularity seems to be growing / solidifying. But equally they have the same opinion about Lazenby, Dalton (critics often sound like Higgins!) and Brosnan. Craig is popular at present and Connery will always be a perennial favourite.
So, the thread seems a little like an ox-box lake. Not sure it's going anywhere
but I was really marking time until Roger stepped down and EON came back to their senses and got themselves a "real" Bond and started making more serious Bond films again.
"Only playboys and tennis pros!"
Fair enough, so when Moore stepped down, how did EON do after that? What did you think of Brosnan?
These reads as an increasingly strange thread, providing an opportunity for those who don't like Moore (fair enough) to say that they don't like Moore. I don't think there's been much challenge to the original question: why do non-Bond fans dislike the Moore era?
So - first basic question: what's the definition of "non-Bond fans", particularly given the fact that the key reference is to someone watching ALL the films. Doesn't that make them a Bond fan?
But then that argument - even if you accept it - is in effect magnified without much justification to encompass all non-Bond fans. Did I miss the evidence base for that?
Like many people here i read a lot of articles about Bond and the journalists (are they Bond fans or non-Bond fans) sometimes don't like Moore and sometimes love him. If anything, by and large his popularity seems to be growing / solidifying. But equally they have the same opinion about Lazenby, Dalton (critics often sound like Higgins!) and Brosnan. Craig is popular at present and Connery will always be a perennial favourite.
So, the thread seems a little like an ox-box lake. Not sure it's going anywhere
Because it’s a forum, input will vary and in this case, there will be different factors that people think are at play why “non-Bond” fans "hate" the Moore era. If you think what you just posted adequately answers the question, then it’s done, resolved and you should be satisfied, particularly with your input…but you are not satisfied, so, what else do you propose, or what else can you offer?
Do we really need to define to a "t" who Bond fans are and who are not? It seems most in this thread have some concept who those are. Or, do we need to conduct polls, organize focus groups or get more statistics to scientifically define criteria of exactly who are and who are not Bond fans? So, what is a Bond fan? Even the Bond actors are not all Bond fans, several of them saying on record that they haven’t watched a Bond film since so and so decade. Yet, one doesn’t need to be a Bond series faithful to be aware of who played Bond, at least the more famous ones, and brace yourself, despite of that they can still be Bond fans. Roger Ebert was another good example; no doubt he watched every Bond EON movie released in his lifetime but judging from his reviews (along with other famous critics like Pauline Kael and Richard Corliss), he was not a die-hard Bond fan, seeming to be ignorant of subtle trivia that true Bond fans would have etched into their memory.
In short of going that scientific route, the short answers are: (1) yes, (to better rephrase the thread question) there are non-die hard Bond fans; (2) the Moore era is panned by both casual Bond fans and die-hard fans, because; (3) for the simple reason that there was a Connery era and all that implies, which is unfortunate for the reputation of any other Bond actor, most especially Moore because he was the next “biggest” Bond in closest time proximity to Connery.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I agree with Superado that people today will move on much easier from Daniel Craig than a Sean Connery back in the 60's. It's not a knock on Daniel Craig, but people these days are just used to franchises being re-booted every few years like Batman and Spiderman. That being said, if EON really screws up choosing a successor to Craig there will be a price to pay at the box office. Also, I think Moore was helped a bit by Lazenby. Lazenby IMO really took the big hit and made it a bit easier for Moore.
I agree with Superado that people today will move on much easier from Daniel Craig than a Sean Connery back in the 60's. It's not a knock on Daniel Craig, but people these days are just used to franchises being re-booted every few years like Batman and Spiderman. That being said, if EON really screws up choosing a successor to Craig there will be a price to pay at the box office. Also, I think Moore was helped a bit by Lazenby. Lazenby IMO really took the big hit and made it a bit easier for Moore.
For a while I thought people were going to have a hard time moving on from Craig as they did from Connery, especially since Craig was able to beat Connery is best-Bond polls (something I don't think any other Bond has). But then Craig surprised non-fans by coming back in a fourth Bond film that non-fans didn't like. DAF did not even ruin Connery's popularity, but SP did it for Craig. Non-fans really seem ready for a new Bond, though many of them will be disappointed when they find out it's not Idris Elba because many non-fans I've spoken to think he already got the role.
By non-fans, I'm talking about people who have seen one or two of Craig's films, and maybe they've seen one of Brosnan's Bond films or played the GoldenEye video game.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
edited August 2016
Going back to what I said about demographics, I think the spectrum of movie goers today is radically different from 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, but the most radical amount of change in audience tastes IMO happened in the past 10-15 years. In terms of psyche, worldview, tastes and preferences, Bond fans and "casual" Bond fans of the 60s are no where near in semblance to the Bond fans and "casual" Bond fans. This is important to observe because it tells us as Bond fans where we came from, and it provides implications for the franchise of where today's fan base stands and where it is going. Fans defined the coolness of the Connery Era, but everything else that followed, including the Moore era up to Brosnan's tenure, seemed like a rehash of that genesis; this is the reason why "non-fans seem to hate the Moore era."
On the other hand, the Craig reboot totally disassociated itself from all that came before to the reception of a largely new audience, totally virgin ground with at best the vaguest notion of what James Bond was all about except that whatever that might have been, had been personified into a James Bond that they could completely relate with. I think that's cool...that the franchise successfully reinvented itself to make itself relevant again and some may argue, perhaps even more relevant than before if box office returns are indicators of that. As a fan, I'm glad that I'm able to conceptually appreciate Bond in this new era, while retaining my love for all the different Bond eras that came before. But because some wish to force distinctions between the eras to the point of asserting that the Craig era is best, I am contented to differ and won't feel too bad that I am from a different generation with a different tastes and preferences, psyche, worldview, etc.
Lastly, it's interesting to note that Connery's Bond shared the entertainment stage with the likes of John Wayne, Elvis, Cary Grant and Rock Hudson, but today's Bond (Craig and his successor) is competing with a flood of superhero movies, Vin Diesel and Pokemon. Connery's Bond enjoyed a cult-like following from a wide spectrum of fans, whereas, despite SF's record breaking box office, today James Bond no longer has a cult-following and was just the fortunate selection of young viewers who went on to watch the next Twilight installment the week after, thanks to the wonders of the multiplex cinema houses.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
but I was really marking time until Roger stepped down and EON came back to their senses and got themselves a "real" Bond and started making more serious Bond films again.
"Only playboys and tennis pros!"
Fair enough, so when Moore stepped down, how did EON do after that? What did you think of Brosnan?
The franchise had problems before the end of the Moore era. AVTAK is one of the lowest grossing films and Octopussy and FYEO didn't do that great at the box office, either.
I agree with Superado that people today will move on much easier from Daniel Craig than a Sean Connery back in the 60's. It's not a knock on Daniel Craig, but people these days are just used to franchises being re-booted every few years like Batman and Spiderman. That being said, if EON really screws up choosing a successor to Craig there will be a price to pay at the box office. Also, I think Moore was helped a bit by Lazenby. Lazenby IMO really took the big hit and made it a bit easier for Moore.
For a while I thought people were going to have a hard time moving on from Craig as they did from Connery, especially since Craig was able to beat Connery is best-Bond polls (something I don't think any other Bond has). But then Craig surprised non-fans by coming back in a fourth Bond film that non-fans didn't like. DAF did not even ruin Connery's popularity, but SP did it for Craig. Non-fans really seem ready for a new Bond, though many of them will be disappointed when they find out it's not Idris Elba because many non-fans I've spoken to think he already got the role.
By non-fans, I'm talking about people who have seen one or two of Craig's films, and maybe they've seen one of Brosnan's Bond films or played the GoldenEye video game.
Most of the "non-fans" were fine with Craig in SP, it was other aspects of the film that were problematic with the general public (and with some hard-core fans as well).
Craig's place in posterity won't be known until we get a film or two from the new guy.
I think it's because of Daniel Craig to be honest. He's popularized the Dark, Edgy Bond and Moore's Bond is the exact opposite of that. Before Casino Royale came out I didn't see nearly as much hate directed at the Moore Era.
Personally I think Roger Moore is the most likable Bond. He just has this vibe about him that makes him impossible for me not to be charmed by him. He stumbled in his first two films by trying to emulate Sean Connery, but once he found his own style (with much credit to Lewis Gilbert for helping him) he was a damn good 007.
Personally I think Roger Moore is the most likable Bond. He just has this vibe about him that makes him impossible for me not to be charmed by him. He stumbled in his first two films by trying to emulate Sean Connery, but once he found his own style (with much credit to Lewis Gilbert for helping him) he was a damn good 007.
Personally I think Roger Moore is the most likable Bond. He just has this vibe about him that makes him impossible for me not to be charmed by him. He stumbled in his first two films by trying to emulate Sean Connery, but once he found his own style (with much credit to Lewis Gilbert for helping him) he was a damn good 007.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
edited August 2016
It's interesting how according to the article, the recently opened-up Chinese market was a huge factor in the box office records for SF, which implies that the market was much smaller during the time of TB. I wonder if there are stats out there that show the estimated, total number of possible ticket buying people at any given time period; for example, would 1.5 to 2 billion be a reasonable number for people in the world today who are potential movie house customers? I would then take the number of actual, total tickets sold for a particular movie (vs. domestic and international box office totals) and make a ratio out of that. that would be a more accurate way of measuring a movie's total audience because we do not know how ticket prices fluctuated through the decades despite being adjusted for inflation and because ticket prices themselves are not constant (pricing for youth, seniors, matinee, budget, deluxe seating, 3D, etc.)
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The greatest indication is just the pure BO figure at the time of release and comparing it to what else was released that year. Major films these days making $1bn is not surprising - especially decent or highly popular series. The Dark Knight seemed to kick this off, I remember that being quite a big deal when it even got around the $900m mark.
Yes, Thunderball made an absolute killing at the box office when you adjust it for inflation, but still, look at it at the time of release and $141m at the time is a good enough indication of its success. Only coming 2nd to The Sound of Music in 1965.
Using this to continue my defence of Roger's BO results:
FYEO was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1981 worldwide, behind Raiders.
OP was the 3rd of 1983, behind Jedi and Flashdance.
Even AVTAK was still 4th of 1985, behind Back to the Future, Rambo and Rocky. But around half of the taking of those films.
GB and TB were absolute monster hits. Remember there was no waiting for the DVD or waiting for it to come on HBO back then and less competition for entertainment dollars in general. Films were rolled out /released differently back then too. In the US, first they opened in NYC and LA, in just one or two theaters in each city. In another couple of weeks, the film would start to open in other major cities, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, etc. After that, the film for go national, but just in large "1st Run" theaters. Finally the film would hit the smaller "2nd run" neighborhood theaters and drive-ins. It was much different back in the old days. Sometimes, a film for work its way back into a 1st run theater during a slow movie time if it was a big hit to squeeze a few more $$$ out of it many times paired in a double feature with a lesser "B" movie....and of course we are all familiar with the many great two Bond film double feature re-releases during the 60's and 70's that got us through to the next new Bond film and continued to build the audience.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
The greatest indication is just the pure BO figure at the time of release and comparing it to what else was released that year. Major films these days making $1bn is not surprising - especially decent or highly popular series. The Dark Knight seemed to kick this off, I remember that being quite a big deal when it even got around the $900m mark.
Yes, Thunderball made an absolute killing at the box office when you adjust it for inflation, but still, look at it at the time of release and $141m at the time is a good enough indication of its success. Only coming 2nd to The Sound of Music in 1965.
Using this to continue my defence of Roger's BO results:
FYEO was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1981 worldwide, behind Raiders.
OP was the 3rd of 1983, behind Jedi and Flashdance.
Even AVTAK was still 4th of 1985, behind Back to the Future, Rambo and Rocky. But around half of the taking of those films.
Is Goldfinger the only #1 BO release in a year?
That’s another good approach. What about taking the total domestic and international theater revenues for any given year, and then calculating a percentage for each movie, using its own domestic and international revenue? More recent years (actually, from the periods when cable and home video began) would naturally include revenues from those other media.
GB and TB were absolute monster hits. Remember there was no waiting for the DVD or waiting for it to come on HBO back then and less competition for entertainment dollars in general. Films were rolled out /released differently back then too. In the US, first they opened in NYC and LA, in just one or two theaters in each city. In another couple of weeks, the film would start to open in other major cities, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, etc. After that, the film for go national, but just in large "1st Run" theaters. Finally the film would hit the smaller "2nd run" neighborhood theaters and drive-ins. It was much different back in the old days. Sometimes, a film for work its way back into a 1st run theater during a slow movie time if it was a big hit to squeeze a few more $$$ out of it many times paired in a double feature with a lesser "B" movie....and of course we are all familiar with the many great two Bond film double feature re-releases during the 60's and 70's that got us through to the next new Bond film and continued to build the audience.
Very true, so many different factors at play with so many changes in media like the advent of home video. I vaguely remember Star Wars getting mentioned recently and with the 1st movie, my family and I stood in line for 4 hours, around the block and a year later, there was a full page ad in the newspaper to celebrate its 1st anniversary in the theater! The same was true for the Godfather and the Exorcist. Nowadays blockbusters are shown on the hour and available a few months later on video disc, on demand, cable, etc. At any year, the pull of a movie will determine how many screens it's shown on and the number of weeks theater owners will keep them running. Nowadays we can add to that the expense of producing plastic discs or reserving virtual shelf space for on-demand copies of any given movie...but the bottom line is a movie's merits to compete with other movies in the market.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I am not sure that non Bond fans do hate Roger Moore as Bond. Speaking to a bloke at work today who isn't a Bond fan and his favourite actor in the role was Sir Rog himself. I would think most non Bond film fans are also not familiar with Fleming's novels so are not concerned about how the films compare to the books. They just enjoy Roger's films for what they are - great fun filled adventures.
I think it's more likely Bond fans like ourselves who dislike the Moore era and pine for the golden era of Connery. Or see Dalton taking over the role as getting back to the roots of Fleming's Bond.
Even though Sir Roger is not my favourite Bond actor I happen to enjoy his films and always love watching them. -{
...there was no waiting for the DVD or waiting for it to come on HBO back then and less competition for entertainment dollars in general. Films were rolled out /released differently back then too. In the US, first they opened in NYC and LA, in just one or two theaters in each city. In another couple of weeks, the film would start to open in other major cities, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, etc. After that, the film for go national, but just in large "1st Run" theaters. Finally the film would hit the smaller "2nd run" neighborhood theaters and drive-ins. It was much different back in the old days. Sometimes, a film for work its way back into a 1st run theater during a slow movie time if it was a big hit to squeeze a few more $$$ out of it many times paired in a double feature with a lesser "B" movie....and of course we are all familiar with the many great two Bond film double feature re-releases during the 60's and 70's that got us through to the next new Bond film and continued to build the audience.
I miss all that, even through the eighties there were plenty of second-run and repertory movie theatres in every city, you just had to wait patiently a few months and older films would be back up on the big screen again ... sure its more convenient to watch DVDs whenever I choose, drink beer, pause the film, etc, but it was more fun going to see Apocalypse Now or Clockwork Orange on those repertory movie screens
I distinctly remember seeing "the Spy Who Loved Me" in a double bill with "Golden Gun" at a seedy 2nd run theatre on Yonge Street, a year after it came out, even though I'd already seen the latter film on teevee chopped up with commercials
the Spy Who Loved Me came out the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters ... I lined up to see each of those three films several times, whereas these recent Craig films I saw once each in the theatre then waited to borrow the dvd from my library for a second viewing
... as for these poorly defined "non-fans", up til recently it was the Moore films they accepted as proper Bond films ... people wanted precisely those elements that got mocked in Austin Powers, not any grim and gritty real world consequences ... I've tried explaining Fleming to people and been told that's not Bond, Moonraker is Bond, as if either I had misread Fleming or Fleming was somehow completely irrelevant ... but until recently, those mid70s Moore films were what "non-fans" thought of when they thought of Bond
^ With Octopussy and FYEO in the middle of the pack when it comes to ROI! )
Aren't those goal posts getting kind of heavy?
Potentially. But as I said in another post above, FYEO was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1981, OP 3rd of 1983 and AVTAK 4th. They're slipping with the other Bonds, but certainly not poor.
Roger Moore is my least favourite Bond and I prefer a more grittier and realistic Bond - Craig, Dalton, early Connery. However Moore's films made a lot of money and kept the franchise going and I even enjoy Roger's films. I may have to turn my brain off at times but I still enjoy them, and TSWLM is truly one of the best Bond films that has been made.
Roger Moore is my least favourite Bond and I prefer a more grittier and realistic Bond - Craig, Dalton, early Connery. However Moore's films made a lot of money and kept the franchise going and I even enjoy Roger's films. I may have to turn my brain off at times but I still enjoy them, and TSWLM is truly one of the best Bond films that has been made.
"Early Connery" is an interesting point. IMO Connery's GF onwards align with Moore's first 4 films quite heavily.
Comments
{[] I never missed a Bond film on the big screen...ever. But by the time OP and and AVTAK came out, the cringes (for me) outweighed the triumphs by a good-Godly margin.
Cheers to anyone who prefers him! Not my cup of tea.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't want to do a hatchet job, but that would be in any scenes involving a chopper? Such as in Axe View To Axe Kill? ;%
Well...that's a rather cutting remark
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Very incisive ;%
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think this question also needs to look at the generational aspect of the Bond phenomena. New, younger fans like Millennials have greater access and exposure to the entire library and actually have the most objective chance to review each film and Bond actor outside of their immediate cultural context; the paradox, is that some of these fans to their credit take into account the cultural context, while many do not...so it's from these younger fans who have opinions that I, as an older fan, find interesting in the least, sometimes intriguing and occasionally, bizarre. To their credit, many recognize the cultural impact of Connery's fan and manage to "see" it for themselves.
But going to the other end of the generational spectrum... Based on my personal conversations with casual, i.e., "non-diehard" fans through the decades, namely older relatives, friends, classmates, school peers, etc., those who either were around for the Connery era or who grew up with Moore as the Bond of the moment, with consensus recount how Connery just nailed it. In fact, it wasn’t a matter of Connery being the actor who nailed it because all of these people I know/knew don’t have the Bond books for reference; all they know is that this guy named Connery was James Bond and during the 60’s he was the coolest thing since Elvis and Sputnik. It was just unfortunate that in the minds of these fans, Moore had a tough act to follow. Interestingly, many of these casual fans were not aware or totally forgot the “in-between” Bond (Lazenby) and even the more recent Dalton Bond.
Then…returning to the present, there’s this debate about the best Bond ever as AJB members occasionally contend, primarily using box office statistics…which is a good start. However, as mentioned I think the cultural contexts need to be accounted for, including the differences in socio-economic profiles of film-goers, movie distribution since the 60s (esp. the rise of the multiplex), the evolution of movie genres (Bond imitators no longer relegated to TV and now rival or eclipse Bond movies). Based on box office returns, people make a leap that Craig surpassed Connery as the “best Bond.” Tapping into that pool of “casual fans” who were around in the Connery era, they could not tell you enough how a big deal he was and how wide the impact he made across demographic lines. Whereas today, as big a draw the Craig Bonds are/were, I contend that he is merely a popular draw among many, many other choices for the action blockbuster movie fan’s ticket dollar. Case in point, compare the public concern when Connnery quit the first time around to today, on the cusp of a new Bond casting (and the end of the Craig era). I particularly did not feel the ground shake and I don’t really see this a headline news that the public is loosing sleep over to resolve. So, any other Bond other than Connery, will only be second to Connery at best and worse, will be totally forgotten by “non-fans.”
So - first basic question: what's the definition of "non-Bond fans", particularly given the fact that the key reference is to someone watching ALL the films. Doesn't that make them a Bond fan?
But then that argument - even if you accept it - is in effect magnified without much justification to encompass all non-Bond fans. Did I miss the evidence base for that?
Like many people here i read a lot of articles about Bond and the journalists (are they Bond fans or non-Bond fans) sometimes don't like Moore and sometimes love him. If anything, by and large his popularity seems to be growing / solidifying. But equally they have the same opinion about Lazenby, Dalton (critics often sound like Higgins!) and Brosnan. Craig is popular at present and Connery will always be a perennial favourite.
So, the thread seems a little like an ox-box lake. Not sure it's going anywhere
Damn, how embarrassing! Sorry folks
"Better make that two."
"Only playboys and tennis pros!"
Fair enough, so when Moore stepped down, how did EON do after that? What did you think of Brosnan?
"Better make that two."
Na, nothing to worry about, we all make typos- I just can't resist making puns.
Because it’s a forum, input will vary and in this case, there will be different factors that people think are at play why “non-Bond” fans "hate" the Moore era. If you think what you just posted adequately answers the question, then it’s done, resolved and you should be satisfied, particularly with your input…but you are not satisfied, so, what else do you propose, or what else can you offer?
Do we really need to define to a "t" who Bond fans are and who are not? It seems most in this thread have some concept who those are. Or, do we need to conduct polls, organize focus groups or get more statistics to scientifically define criteria of exactly who are and who are not Bond fans? So, what is a Bond fan? Even the Bond actors are not all Bond fans, several of them saying on record that they haven’t watched a Bond film since so and so decade. Yet, one doesn’t need to be a Bond series faithful to be aware of who played Bond, at least the more famous ones, and brace yourself, despite of that they can still be Bond fans. Roger Ebert was another good example; no doubt he watched every Bond EON movie released in his lifetime but judging from his reviews (along with other famous critics like Pauline Kael and Richard Corliss), he was not a die-hard Bond fan, seeming to be ignorant of subtle trivia that true Bond fans would have etched into their memory.
In short of going that scientific route, the short answers are: (1) yes, (to better rephrase the thread question) there are non-die hard Bond fans; (2) the Moore era is panned by both casual Bond fans and die-hard fans, because; (3) for the simple reason that there was a Connery era and all that implies, which is unfortunate for the reputation of any other Bond actor, most especially Moore because he was the next “biggest” Bond in closest time proximity to Connery.
For a while I thought people were going to have a hard time moving on from Craig as they did from Connery, especially since Craig was able to beat Connery is best-Bond polls (something I don't think any other Bond has). But then Craig surprised non-fans by coming back in a fourth Bond film that non-fans didn't like. DAF did not even ruin Connery's popularity, but SP did it for Craig. Non-fans really seem ready for a new Bond, though many of them will be disappointed when they find out it's not Idris Elba because many non-fans I've spoken to think he already got the role.
By non-fans, I'm talking about people who have seen one or two of Craig's films, and maybe they've seen one of Brosnan's Bond films or played the GoldenEye video game.
On the other hand, the Craig reboot totally disassociated itself from all that came before to the reception of a largely new audience, totally virgin ground with at best the vaguest notion of what James Bond was all about except that whatever that might have been, had been personified into a James Bond that they could completely relate with. I think that's cool...that the franchise successfully reinvented itself to make itself relevant again and some may argue, perhaps even more relevant than before if box office returns are indicators of that. As a fan, I'm glad that I'm able to conceptually appreciate Bond in this new era, while retaining my love for all the different Bond eras that came before. But because some wish to force distinctions between the eras to the point of asserting that the Craig era is best, I am contented to differ and won't feel too bad that I am from a different generation with a different tastes and preferences, psyche, worldview, etc.
Lastly, it's interesting to note that Connery's Bond shared the entertainment stage with the likes of John Wayne, Elvis, Cary Grant and Rock Hudson, but today's Bond (Craig and his successor) is competing with a flood of superhero movies, Vin Diesel and Pokemon. Connery's Bond enjoyed a cult-like following from a wide spectrum of fans, whereas, despite SF's record breaking box office, today James Bond no longer has a cult-following and was just the fortunate selection of young viewers who went on to watch the next Twilight installment the week after, thanks to the wonders of the multiplex cinema houses.
The franchise had problems before the end of the Moore era. AVTAK is one of the lowest grossing films and Octopussy and FYEO didn't do that great at the box office, either.
Most of the "non-fans" were fine with Craig in SP, it was other aspects of the film that were problematic with the general public (and with some hard-core fans as well).
Craig's place in posterity won't be known until we get a film or two from the new guy.
Personally I think Roger Moore is the most likable Bond. He just has this vibe about him that makes him impossible for me not to be charmed by him. He stumbled in his first two films by trying to emulate Sean Connery, but once he found his own style (with much credit to Lewis Gilbert for helping him) he was a damn good 007.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
{[]
Actually FYEO was very successful. It made $194.9m - that's $514m today. This was only $15m less than the MR $210m haul.
OP did $183m at the box office, being $452m today.
Pretty good box office results IMO.
"Better make that two."
In inflation adjusted world wide dollars FYEO ranks 17th out of 24 Bond films. Octopussy 20th and AVTAK 23rd.
http://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
"Better make that two."
The greatest indication is just the pure BO figure at the time of release and comparing it to what else was released that year. Major films these days making $1bn is not surprising - especially decent or highly popular series. The Dark Knight seemed to kick this off, I remember that being quite a big deal when it even got around the $900m mark.
Yes, Thunderball made an absolute killing at the box office when you adjust it for inflation, but still, look at it at the time of release and $141m at the time is a good enough indication of its success. Only coming 2nd to The Sound of Music in 1965.
Using this to continue my defence of Roger's BO results:
FYEO was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1981 worldwide, behind Raiders.
OP was the 3rd of 1983, behind Jedi and Flashdance.
Even AVTAK was still 4th of 1985, behind Back to the Future, Rambo and Rocky. But around half of the taking of those films.
Is Goldfinger the only #1 BO release in a year?
"Better make that two."
That’s another good approach. What about taking the total domestic and international theater revenues for any given year, and then calculating a percentage for each movie, using its own domestic and international revenue? More recent years (actually, from the periods when cable and home video began) would naturally include revenues from those other media.
Very true, so many different factors at play with so many changes in media like the advent of home video. I vaguely remember Star Wars getting mentioned recently and with the 1st movie, my family and I stood in line for 4 hours, around the block and a year later, there was a full page ad in the newspaper to celebrate its 1st anniversary in the theater! The same was true for the Godfather and the Exorcist. Nowadays blockbusters are shown on the hour and available a few months later on video disc, on demand, cable, etc. At any year, the pull of a movie will determine how many screens it's shown on and the number of weeks theater owners will keep them running. Nowadays we can add to that the expense of producing plastic discs or reserving virtual shelf space for on-demand copies of any given movie...but the bottom line is a movie's merits to compete with other movies in the market.
Aren't those goal posts getting kind of heavy?
I think it's more likely Bond fans like ourselves who dislike the Moore era and pine for the golden era of Connery. Or see Dalton taking over the role as getting back to the roots of Fleming's Bond.
Even though Sir Roger is not my favourite Bond actor I happen to enjoy his films and always love watching them. -{
I distinctly remember seeing "the Spy Who Loved Me" in a double bill with "Golden Gun" at a seedy 2nd run theatre on Yonge Street, a year after it came out, even though I'd already seen the latter film on teevee chopped up with commercials
the Spy Who Loved Me came out the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters ... I lined up to see each of those three films several times, whereas these recent Craig films I saw once each in the theatre then waited to borrow the dvd from my library for a second viewing
... as for these poorly defined "non-fans", up til recently it was the Moore films they accepted as proper Bond films ... people wanted precisely those elements that got mocked in Austin Powers, not any grim and gritty real world consequences ... I've tried explaining Fleming to people and been told that's not Bond, Moonraker is Bond, as if either I had misread Fleming or Fleming was somehow completely irrelevant ... but until recently, those mid70s Moore films were what "non-fans" thought of when they thought of Bond
I'm the same. I happened to see SF twice at the movies, and didn't own a copy of it until last year. SP I don't own yet either.
Potentially. But as I said in another post above, FYEO was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1981, OP 3rd of 1983 and AVTAK 4th. They're slipping with the other Bonds, but certainly not poor.
"Better make that two."
"Early Connery" is an interesting point. IMO Connery's GF onwards align with Moore's first 4 films quite heavily.
"Better make that two."