Well, I think that this is a good sign!
Roger Moore thinks Bond is too violent.
I once saw an interview with Moore, when Moonraker came out, wherein he was asked what he would do once he got too old to play Bond. He replied that he’d probably play a Bond girl, perhaps he’s a bit miffed he’s not been asked yet? 
And Adam West probably doesn’t like “The Dark Knight.” So what?
Roger Moore’s Bond was a silly, fun, light-hearted, witty charmer. Daniel Craig’s is supposed to be a cold, lethal assassin.
One can like either, both, or neither.
I thought “Moonraker” was a lot of fun, even if it was a bit cartoonish. Of course, I ALSO thought that Timothy Dalton was the best Bond of all and that “License to Kill” would have been Ian Fleming’s favorite of the Bond films (it was actually MUCH closer to the novel “Live and Let Die” than the movie “Live and Let Die” was)…
Shows you what I know.
With the exception of David Niven, they’re all still alive, right?
Somewhere there’s someone with a storyline to put 'em all together in another film featuring their different personalities and ways of “working” the character.
Q
And Peter Sellers. He’s passed as well.
Ehh, Moore was the least of the Bonds anyway. It’s would be kind of like Joe Piscopo saying Chris Kattan sucks.
I thought Roger Moore was too laid-back for Bond, although I liked his TV portrayal of the Saint (an elegant ‘Robin Hood’ type conman).
Daniel Craig plays tough very well, but I thought the big problems with Quantum of Solace were:
Read some of Moore’s autobio excerpts on a Bond site a while back. In those, he seemed to quite like Craig and the modern take on the role. Was he talking about QoS in particular here?
Sir Rhosis
Casino Royale is most certainly set in modern times. How/why would they have Bond going back in time?
Two points:
Craig’s movies aren’t prequels to the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan series, they’re a reboot of the franchise.
The fact that Dame Judi Dench is playing M would be a much bigger continuity issue, if it were (she started as M in the original series very late on).
The best estimate from the original books is that Bond was born sometime around 1920, which means that Moore comes closest to being the right age.
But are Roger Moore’s movies, such as Octopussy in 1983, set in the right year for the books? It’s set in 1983 and the books aren’t set that recent, are they?
Not in that case, anyway - the books are set in the (at the time of writing) present, and Flemming died in '65.
And even the Post-Flemming books also move the time period of the Flemming books up so that they didn’t age Bond nearly so much. Even in the latest ones, one assumes, at least (as I haven’t read them), that Bond remains in the same age range, which, of course, moves the Flemming books up to the 80s and 90s - or 90s, and 2000s, since apparently the recent author has mostly ignored the 80s books, so the fact that they aged Bond a decade might be among the ignored aspects.
That’s true until recently when the Young Bond Series of boks took the character back to his 1930s roots.
Devil May Care, the latest (adult) Bond book is, as far as I can tell officially sanctioned and is still set in the 1960s.
Bonds birth year has not been officially stated, but IIRC he was about 36 in the early books as at one point he mentions that double O agents have to “retire” at 40.
Which is somewhat ironic, given that the Saint in the original Leslie Charteris books was a bloody thug.
I don’t pay attention to Bond that much so I always assumed “James Bond” was a code name assigned to whichever agent took on the designation 007 and that multiple agents over time have assumed that role. Same thing for all the other secret spy folks like Q and M.
So, in my mind, some Assistant Spy, let’s say he’s named Sean Connery, got promoted to full fledged Spy in the 1960s and was assigned the number 007 and the code name James Bond. Connery later retired or died and opened up the 007-Bond slot for some future Assistant Spy to get a promotion (e.g., Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, etc.).
I guess I just made all that up.
That’s not too improbable, and with a little fanwankery, that could be made to work. The only hitch would be the line in Casino Royale (the canonical Daniel Craig, not that 60s abortion) where Bond says something to the effect, “I always thought that ‘M’ was just a codename. I didn’t know it stood for–” At which point, M cuts him off with, “Utter one more syllable and I’ll have you killed.” This leaves it open for it being a job title, with a little stretching.
I’ve always thought that a good Bond film would be to have one of the former Bond’s (say Connery) as a retired agent who’s gone rogue, and you had to send the current holder of the name after him. This would lead to the ex-007 saying to his henchmen, “And when you find ‘Mr. Bond,’ kill him, I know what happens if someone tries to capture him.”
Devil May Care takes the point of view that none of the non-Fleming novels ever existed, and so it naturally goes to the 1960s. But every other non-Fleming Bond novel (excluding these junior James Bond ones) has been set at the time the novel was published, with a non-aging Bond. Pretty much the way Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin remained the same ages from the 1930s to the 1970s (and beyond, if you count the Robert Goldsborough books)
Neither does anybody else. He’s not likeable. Effective, but a dick. Like he’s supposed to be. He’s a spy and an assassin, fercryinoutloud!
Moore’s Bond was a cartoon.
I dunno, that sort of self-parody seems best left to Austin Powers movies.
Roger Moore thinks the new Bond is “too violent?” Isn’t this the guy who:
…etcetera ad naseum?