Roger Moore is Simon Templar, a much more interesting character in much more interesing stories. Moore should have starred in a series of "Saint" movies, not the Bonds.
The past is a series of presents. The present is living history we are privileged to witness
I could agree more !!!! Well said !!!!
"Every Troll Matters When Message Board
Domination Is Your Goal."
I also agree.
I find it very ironic that, compared to the Templar of the books, Roger Moore often played Simon TOO SERIOUS!!! I'm not kidding. And yet, when he was cast as Bond, he refused to ever take it serious (apart from a few exceptions, scenes in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY). It's like he got the 2 characters backwards.
THE SAINT tv series did many of the short stories justice, but not so much the novels. My 2 favorite SAINT novels-- ANGELS OF DOOM and SAINT AT THE THIEVES PICNIC, wound up being 2 of the worst (least) of all the SAINT adaptations ever done (the 1st with George Sanders, the 2nd with Roger Moore-- both done in abouyt an hour, when they should have been at least 2 hours or more).
Moore, with his great talent for light comedy, was an excellent choice to play Templar. Certainly a better fit that George Sanders (who was EXCELLENT in THE SAINT IN LONDON and THE SAINT TAKES OVER, mostly by playing himself), he looked more right than Hugh Sinclair (although THE SAINT'S VACATION gets my vote for one of the best SAINT movies ever), but he wasn't nearly as "right" for the part as Louis Hayward. From the first SAINT book I ever read, I realized the character in the books was so UNIQUE in his personality and behavior, the only actor who ever really captured that was Hayward. A pity RKO had such tiny budgets he decided to move on after only the 1st installment! (THE SAINT IN LONDON is actually a much better film, and is the only one of the RKO features that really, truly captures the feel and ambiance of Templar's world-- so it's ironic it starred the actor least right for the role, but as I said, Sanders was damn good in there despite himself.)
It took me years to catch up with the B&W episodes, and what a shock they were. So well-written and acted, and most of them adaptations of the short stories. When the show went color, like many series at the time, it seemed to get sillier. But the 2nd color season it got more serious again. When I watched my entire SAINT collection in sequence years ago, I was very surprised that the overall "feel" of the final Moore episodes was VERY similar to that in the Ogilvy episodes that followed years later.
Speaking of whom... I always got the impression, somehow, that Ogilvy wasn't supposed to be playing the same character. The few details about his background on that show were completely at odds with every previous version. Many years later, I learned it had started life as "SON OF THE SAINT", but Leslie Charteris nixed the idea. It confirmed my suspicions! Ogilvy is almost a dead ringer for Hayward; I could easily believe his Simon was the son of the original Simon and Patricia Holm.
As for Teal... if memory serves, Moore's series had 4 different actors in the part, and as I recall, the one who "stuck", Ivor Dean, was the LEAST-impressive. If you go back further, however, Gordon McLeod, from 3 of the features (THE SAINT IN LONDON, THE SAINT'S VACATION, THE SAINT MEETS THE TIGER), was THE best Teal ever!! Especially in ...IN LONDON, where we see he's smart enough to know when Templar isn't guilty, and to give him a chance to catch the real baddies. McLeod is the actor I picture as Teal when reading the books, just as Hayward is for Simon. (As for Patricia... definitely Sally Gray. Too bad when she was in 2 of the films, each time she was playing someone else!)
Reminded me of Philip Jackson's Inspector Japp form the Poirot series:
Dean:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Ivor+Dean&qpvt=Ivor+Dean&F ORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=6B0F451EE68DD4864AC6B9C282A55755FD400C4E&a mp;selectedIndex=0
Jackson:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Philip+Jackson&qpvt=Philip+Jac kson&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=D9B9527382C491D3DCDC28B3457CCD29 A109B78C&selectedIndex=169
The past is a series of presents. The present is living history we are privileged to witness
You got a point there. Concerning Bond, I think we were lucky to get both Moore and Connery, Connery is more true to the character but Moore is funny in his way. But a series of Saint movies with Moore, yes, that could have been divine!
shareEvery time I watch LICENSE TO KILL (one of my fave Bonds), the scene where Timothy Dalton jumps from the small airplane onto the top of the oil tanker truck reminds me of a similar scene where Templar jumps from a plane onto the roof of a moving train in THE AVENGING SAINT (sequel to THE LAST HERO).
The villainous businessman in those 2 books, by the way, I always pictured as Lionel Atwill. One of my fave scene in ...AVENGING... is where Templar, unbeknownst to the baddie, is hiding in the guy's bathroom, and with the villain in the next room, Templar spends time writing a message on the bathroom mirror with toothpaste! (The NERVE of that guy.)
Sean Connery could not have goneone being jamesbond indefinately, Roger Moore was a most adequate replacement and did a very good job of it.
The producers (et all) behind James Bond wanted RM to be taking over the part, but Simon was late in doing so because he was so busy with the Saint series.
I enjoy both of the characters, James Bond may not be as interesting a character, but he is more widely viewed and well known, Roger Moore brought somehting intresting to the part.
Having said that, I like all the RM JB films apart from Moonraker and I have not seen Octopussy.
Having said that, I like all the RM JB films apart from Moonraker and I have not seen Octopussy.
Why not it was his best IMO?
Roger time was fun and he worked much harder in his last three, more fun then boring Danny.
See some stars here
http://www.vbphoto.biz/
Sean Connery will always be the definitive Bond; and Moore will always be the definitive Saint (especially the early, B&W episodes); although I thought that Ian Ogilvy did a pretty good job reprising the role briefly in the 1970s.
shareI beg your pardon? Did i just read that right?
'Sean Connery is the DEFINITIVE Bond'
What a load of codswallop!! I have every Bond book Ian Fleming wrote, and every movie on DVD. Having read every novel several times, and with the care of an obsessed fan who doubtless requires therapy, i noted the following;
Bond was not a Scot, it therefore follows that he'd not have a Scottish accent.
Bond sported "a luxurious growth of dark hair"
...he was NOT afflicted with male pattern baldness that required the use of a toupeé at the age of 31 for a certain film, and all of the subsequent sequels! About the only thing they got right in the Connery movies was showing Bond smoking and drinking. Fleming paints 007 as a chain smoking 'functioning alcoholic.'
Roger Moore got the characterization much closer to Fleming's portrait..playing him as public schooled, urbane and clubbable. If one uses the books as a guide (surely the only way to do it) then Timothy Dalton is the ONLY actor to 'nail' the part, and portray James Bond correctly! Bond is a vicious killer, a blunt instrument you'd not want to meet down that dark alley often referred to! Read the books, that's how Dalton played him. A classical actor from the Royal Shakespeare Company, Dalton had done his homework, and it shows quite clearly in 'The Living Daylights' & 'Licence To Kill!' Were it not for studio politics and legal infighting, he had every intention of doing more, as it was he tired of the delays, and quit to pursue more viable projects (as well as his respected stage career) I've never understood all the raving reviews of Connery's Bond, if you're a fan of FLEMING'S CHARACTER, then Sean simply isn't much good!
Even George Lazenby portrayed Bond better, & he only had one crack at the role with no opportunity to develop the part!
Brosnan? Very good in the role, and he LOOKED the part!
The best critic of all is TIME...and time will see Daniel Craig as THE James Bond.
All the Connery films do for me is to make me wince!