Post #319668 by ManFromT.I.K.I. on Wed, Jul 18, 2007 4:54 PM

Yeah, those were the days . . . when toys had the high probability for causing bodily injury. Manufacturers couldn't get away with half that stuff today.

Hey Vampiress, at least you still have some vestige's of your childhood left in what remains of your dolls. I had a look at what some of the Bond stuff goes for today $$$$$$ Wow!(BTW my sister who is youngest of four with 3 brothers used to watch us open our gifts of space/army/spy etc. stuff, then she'd open her package with a doll inside and just start crying.)

Anyway, more to the topic I guess Roger Moore's rep as Bond does suffer more from the scripts of a lot of his films, than for him as an actor, per se. I have noticed that most I talk to prefer Connery by far, as do I. They really got it right the first time. I also like how the earlier movies relied more on character and story and less on spectacular special effects. The later ones with Moore had gotten almost campy at times--intentionally so. The self-references and playful nods to spy movie cliches with a wink to the audience made it seem at times that they were spoofing themselves too much.

To be sure, there was always a bit of tongue in cheek about the character, but I preferred when it was less overt.

Maybe it's all due to what was stated earlier. It gets harder to present Bond with straight face in modern times--especially since we're all so aware of the spoofs and satires of the character that have been made since. And let's face it, casinos and nightclubs and other location (as well as fashion, cars and Bond babes) just don't look as hip and swingin' as back in the '60's, which is a huge part of the appeal for me.