NERY's and ROGER MOORE's portrayals of BOND... JAMES
BOND over the years. In my view, the way they look and talk aside,
there really wasn't much difference at all. Depending on what you read
first, some reports said that the producers 'toughened up' Roger's Bond
because he didn't look quite so ruthless as Sean's, hence him slapping
women and generally being mean to them. (MAUD ADAMS in
The MAN With The GOLDEN GUN for example.)
Other reports claim the writers geared the movies towards Roger's
humour in 007 movies. These so-called differences tend to be retroactive
rationalizations applied after the fact in answer to reporters' enquiries. If
you ask someone what the difference is in something, the mere suggest-
ion that there is one will probably produce an answer that meets the
requirements of the question rather than the facts of the case.
shaped by the participation of the late TOM MANKIEWICZ, who
was also involved in LIVE & LET DIE and The MAN With The
GOLDEN GUN. To my mind, Roger's Bond never did anything that
I couldn't imagine Sean's Bond also doing, so the only difference be-
tween the two actors' portrayals was not in the character of
007, but in the way they looked and sounded.
By the time Connery appeared in Diamonds Are Forever, he
was tired of the role - but the role was also tired of him. He was
41, but looked at least ten years older. Sean was definitely the right
man for Bond in the early to mid-'60s, but it's the lean, mean, hungry-
looking Sean of the later movies. Moore is actually older than Connery
by at least two years, but back in '73 he looked a lot younger than 45,
his age when receiving the licence to kill. Roger was the right Bond
for the '70s, just as Sean had been for the decade before.
So, regardless of the actor playing him, Bond is the same
man; suave, charming, debonair - and a ruthless killer when
as Sean. So - here's to Bond... James Bond. I say again -
"Nobody does it better!"