Before anyone else notices, I know I didn’t include Skyfall as a “home”. I think it probably serves a different function. Or I forgot.
I do like the Live and Let Die flat. The other couple of depictions of Bond’s London home are fairly spartan, albeit this is for the sake of one of the better jokes Spectre has to offer in its meagre repertoire, but the Live and Let Die flat is full of bric-a-brac and I do have visions of Moore Bond living there all the way through his tenure, surrounded by his copper pots, his faulty espresso machine and a living area with so much tat in it that it looks like an impoverished provincial museum. Moore Bond might still be there, like Miss Havisham, covered in cobwebs and cradling a ship in a bottle or some other nautical rubbish. It’s great.
Although given his Mankiewicz/Hamilton-fuelled habit of hiding women in wardrobes, the long-bemoulded skeletons of Miss Caruso and Mary Goodnight might be hidden away still, and that’s quite dark.
Live And Let Die for me. It has the most “lived-in” look of them all, and we see the most of it than any of the others–and for the longest time (or close to). And as Jim said, it does seem like a Roger Moore James Bond apartment.
The greatest thing about that scene in LALD cannot be said often enough: this is how a new Bond was introduced! After the failure of OHMSS (I know, it performed well enough, Lazenby was underrated and the film itself now a classic - but at the time it still was a shock to the system so big that getting back Connery even for only one film was the only remedy) and with an uncertain future for the next actor, they really thought: No Bond in the PTS, a rock song with a most unusual structure, jumping on the blaxploitation wagon and introducing Moore in the most unspectacular way, at his home, in a bathrobe, yep, that’s how we will define success.
Compare that to the introduction of every following new Bond. They never dared to be as risky again.
What’s great about it is that it exudes utter confidence, like Roger himself. Laz has a great PTS, but it pulls out all the stops: the tuxedo, the car, a punishing brawl, a beautiful girl…it’s like a mini-movie in itself, ending with the “other fella” remark to engender sympathy for taking on the daunting task of following Connery. It’s just trying so…very…HARD.
In contrast, Roger shows up in his bathrobe and slippers, and – amazingly for Roger – without even combing his hair. “Well of course I’m James Bond. Care for some coffee?” That sense of ease and confidence – feeling no need to “prove” anything to anyone – is for me central to Roger’s appeal as Bond, and I can’t imagine a better intro.
I’ve never seen a Bond film (humour me here). To introduce me and ideally to enthuse me in the series (it’s a sort of grooming thing), a Bond film from which of the below would be the one you’d show me? Below the poll, by all means tell me which of their films and why.
BTW, I saw CR67 on a plane, so I know of Niven. I walked out. At 30,000 feet. Without a parachute. Fortunately there was a 7ft+ bemuscled giant rushing after me and ready to nibble my ankle, but that’s an everyday occurrence.
Connery of course, for those who have never seen a Bond Film, I’d recommend to watch them in chronological order (release). So start with Connery in Dr. No then work your way through there.
To a complete newcomer, no. Those films are very of their time, as are all Bond films. If the hypothetical person has never seen a Bond film before, you go with the current era because that’s the context they definitely know.
Moore. Because he groomed me. Harder to shake him off than the steel-toothed giant.
But mainly because he makes Bond accessible for the broadest audience possible.
For today’s audiences let’s start with the earlier Moore Bond films. Wrinkled protagonists seem to throw off young audiences these days who prefer adults to look like teenage bodybuilders.
Let me revel in my biased view of a yesterday which probably only exists in my current desperation.
… but can we agree on male protagonists these days having to look like going to the gym twice a day, with a personal trainer and nutritionist beefing them up?
Even this guy would now have to muscle up today if he were chosen as Bond:
To introduce someone to, and get them enthused about, the James Bond series, which 007 actor would I show them? Tough call. Sean Connery is the prototypical 007. Daniel Craig is the most recent and of our time. Roger Moore is very likable and Pierce Brosnan is really smooth. While George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton were great, they would not be the Bond of my choice to introduce someone to the world of 007. Besides, while each of their films are good, two of their three are not typical Bond films as they have 007 either getting married or have him resigning from the service to go out for revenge.
So my choice really comes down to Connery and Moore. I’ve thought about this question before from the standpoint of which FILM I would start someone out with? And to me it’s either of two options. Either start at the very beginning with Connery’s Dr. No and continue chronologically (if you’re able to show them more than one film), or go with the film that best exemplifies what the Bond series is all about, and, to me, that film would be The Spy Who Loved Me.
It’s got a larger than life scope with Bond averting World War III. It’s got a megalomaniacal villain, an iconic imposing henchman, a great Bond girl, fantastic sets–arguably Ken Adam’s finest–a solid score by Marvin Hamlisch, one of the very best Bond cars in the amphibious Lotus Esprit “Wet Nellie”, and amazing stunts capped off by 007 skiing off a cliff at the end of the PTS! Everything about the film screams “BOND!” as Cubby Broccoli pulled out all the stops to entertain audiences. The film was a huge success for a reason, and Roger Moore was never better as James Bond. If the newbie doesn’t like this film then they will probably not like the series.
So, if I couldn’t guarantee them watching a second Bond film, I would do my best to show them the one that would make them want to see the rest of the series, and the one that ticks off most of the series’ most well-known and beloved iconographical boxes would be The Spy Who Loved Me with Roger Moore. So Moore is my answer.
I had to go with Roger (as I do in most things, admittedly).
All the classic elements of the Bond formula are represented in his films – sometimes dialed up to 11 – and that includes both the wonderful (crazy villains, magnificent sets, exotic locales, amazing stunts) and the dodgy (OTT plotlines, blatant sexism, sophomoric humor, lousy rear-screen shots). Basically a Roger Moore film is the perfect blend of “best foot forward” and “tough love” – if you come out on the other end of one happy and entertained, then you are prepared for anything any other Bond film can show you.
In contrast, I think if you start with Connery (especially from the beginning) and love it, you will get to the point (as so many have) where you become disappointed and frustrated with change and evolution in the series. First-generation Connery fans are, in my experience, the most unyielding and unadaptable of all (no offense, guys, it’s cool; you can like what you like).
Laz and Dalton are in one way or other both outliers, and if a “newbie” takes to them, they’ll only be let down when there’s little or nothing more of those guys to enjoy. Brosnan’s Bond is a better intro to generic 90s action films that to Bond per se. Craig may very well be the most likely to go over well with a younger, hipper audience, but liking or disliking a Craig Bond tells you zero, zip, nada about how you’ll like the series as a whole, as his films bear almost no resemblance to the rest of the series (and for my money, don’t even star the same character).
No for me, it’s got to be Roger: if you can love him, you’ll find something to love in all the Bonds, possibly even more than you love Roger. And if you hate him, well our friendship will be over anyway, so why do I care whether you’re entertained after that?
Hahaha!! You’re last sentence made me very hard laugh!
I wanted also choose for Roger, but in the last few seconds I chose Connery. I think maybe for someone now who never saw a Bond movie before, don’t expect a realy fun movie with a lot of humour and instead of being encouraged, he may be discouraged from watching more.
So I’m thinking more about classic stuff like Goldfinger or maybe Thunderball, although those movies can be seen as old-fashioned and even too slow for someone who isn’t a fan.
It‘s hot outside, I want to avoid working, I enjoy blabbering on about Bond (or anything else). So I give this another go.
To introduce a newbie into the world of Bond films I choose:
The Spy Who Loved Me
Because it is Moore at his most energetic, fun and agile. Because of Ken Adam. And due to the globetrotting and the west vs east conflict being used by a megalomaniac.
From Russia With Love
Because it is the closest to the Fleming vision, it is a timeless spy thriller and has got Connery when he still wanted to prove he can be a super star with this role.
Both films can be used to make someone interested, and then immediately afterwards the other of these two films will expand the idea of what Bond films can also do.
Being a showtune queen, I could go with Sir Sean following the principle of:
Let’s start at the very beginning
A very good place to start
When you read, you begin with A-B-C
When you sing, you begin with Do-Re-Mi
And with Bond, you begin with Connery
But there is also the appeal of Sir Roger–my first Bond. I would go with a mid-run film–MR–but as exemplary as the film is, what percentage of its pleasures depend on knowing how it rings variations on a theme?
Craig Bond has the appeal of being the most contemporary, and for a new viewer, possibly the most accessible. But are the pleasures of a reboot lost on someone who is unfamiliar with what is being rebooted?
