Haha good point, I think Roger Moore's Bond was in general a lot more fallible. Maybe that was part of the evolution of Bond, along with the emphasis on comedy. The writers wanted to bring him down to earth more like a regular guy than a classic hero.

I'm always trying to put films in context with the times, and I think 80s action definitely had more 'imperfect' heroes, at least on TV. No more perfect Six Million Dollar Man; the 80s gave us the aerodynamically challenged Greatest American Hero, the beach bum Magnum PI, and the slacker David Addison (Bruce Willis, Moonlighting). So maybe Roger Moore's forgot-to-look-behind-me Bond is a natural reflection of that trend (or even the trend setter)?

Things would turn darker by the late 90s-00s, in the Bond universe as well as the world, which was reflected by Daniel Craig's stone hearted bond. It's funny, I wonder if the entire 007 series & evolution of Bond will one day serve as a generational marker for future sociologists to study what we were like!

@rooprect said:

Haha good point, I think Roger Moore's Bond was in general a lot more fallible. Maybe that was part of the evolution of Bond, along with the emphasis on comedy. The writers wanted to bring him down to earth more like a regular guy than a classic hero.

If ever there might be a rational explanation for it, this may be it.

I'm always trying to put films in context with the times, and I think 80s action definitely had more 'imperfect' heroes, at least on TV. No more perfect Six Million Dollar Man; the 80s gave us the aerodynamically challenged Greatest American Hero, the beach bum Magnum PI, and the slacker David Addison (Bruce Willis, Moonlighting). So maybe Roger Moore's forgot-to-look-behind-me Bond is a natural reflection of that trend (or even the trend setter)?

Maybe. It seems to align with its times.

Things would turn darker by the late 90s-00s, in the Bond universe as well as the world, which was reflected by Daniel Craig's stone hearted bond. It's funny, I wonder if the entire 007 series & evolution of Bond will one day serve as a generational marker for future sociologists to study what we were like!

Somewhere in the halls of academia, someone should be defending this thesis!

The observation that Bond is continually captured and in any of those situations could be easily killed is an old one and has been (deservedly) joked about many times-- you can find parodies of it online from both SNL and The Simpsons, and I'm sure many other movies/shows. Typically in these scenarios, Bond is tied up in the evil villain's lair, or in some other way restrained, and then Bond says "Aren't you going to tell me your entire evil plan, and then leave me alone in this room with this slowly-killing-me-machine, which I will then inevitably escape from and foil your dastardly plan?"

To which the villain replies "No", and then shoots and kills Bond and walks away. Cue laugh-track, and end of scene.

As has been pointed out in this thread, this was what made Bond-- in particular Connery and Moore, though I would also add Brosnan (sorry, bratface:)), relatable to your average doughy male audience member (the women-- understandably --enjoyed Bond's handsomeness, class, and unbeatable self-confidence).

There are actually quite a few similarities in Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indiana Jones-- and, for that matter, Han Solo --as well. Always getting captured by the Nazis or frozen by the Empire, before he escapes, or is rescued.

Which is probably why I never really got into Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies-- nothing ever fazes that guy. He's just too tough. (An exception would be his surprising turn in 2015's "Maggie", but then again, he was cast against his usual type in that film).

Rooprect's observation that Bond might/could serve as a generational marker is apt.

@northcoast said:

The observation that Bond is continually captured and in any of those situations could be easily killed is an old one and has been (deservedly) joked about many times-- you can find parodies of it online from both SNL and The Simpsons, and I'm sure many other movies/shows. Typically in these scenarios, Bond is tied up in the evil villain's lair, or in some other way restrained, and then Bond says "Aren't you going to tell me your entire evil plan, and then leave me alone in this room with this slowly-killing-me-machine, which I will then inevitably escape from and foil your dastardly plan?"

To which the villain replies "No", and then shoots and kills Bond and walks away. Cue laugh-track, and end of scene.

As has been pointed out in this thread, this was what made Bond-- in particular Connery and Moore, though I would also add Brosnan (sorry, bratface:)), relatable to your average doughy male audience member (the women-- understandably --enjoyed Bond's handsomeness, class, and unbeatable self-confidence).

There are actually quite a few similarities in Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indiana Jones-- and, for that matter, Han Solo --as well. Always getting captured by the Nazis or frozen by the Empire, before he escapes, or is rescued.

Which is probably why I never really got into Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies-- nothing ever fazes that guy. He's just too tough. (An exception would be his surprising turn in 2015's "Maggie", but then again, he was cast against his usual type in that film).

Rooprect's observation that Bond might/could serve as a generational marker is apt.

No worries, I know I'm in the minority when it comes to my thoughts on Brosnan (& other Bond actors). 😉

On the other hand, is it me, or do double-0s get killed more often than they ought, based on the kind of double-0 James is?

003 got killed in A View to a Kill; 006 gets killed (although, by this time, he was no longer working in her majesty's service) in GoldenEye. An "agent" (though, apparently, not a double0?) was killed at the start of Live and Let Die...

I guess they all try to push their luck, and we follow 007 because he is The One who somehow eludes the laws of nature and "gets the job done" at that next level.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

On the other hand, is it me, or do double-0s get killed more often than they ought, based on the kind of double-0 James is?

003 got killed in A View to a Kill; 006 gets killed (although, by this time, he was no longer working in her majesty's service) in GoldenEye. An "agent" (though, apparently, not a double0?) was killed at the start of Live and Let Die...

I guess they all try to push their luck, and we follow 007 because he is The One who somehow eludes the laws of nature and "gets the job done" at that next level.

Yes, I've often noticed this myself. Let us say that Bond enjoys a 35-year career with Her Majesty's Secret Service. And that there are, at any given time, nine slots for secret agents-- 001 through 009. Within that 35-year span, going by the poor luck/inadequacy of the other 00's, at 007's retirement/eventual death, would it not be hard to suppose that 40 other blokes have died off in the other 8 slots?!

It is like Star Trek-- despite a large Federation Fleet, only Enterprise is competent (although, here, towards the end of some of the TV series and the last original series movies, a few other Federation ships appeared proficient. Which from a believability standpoint I greatly appreciated).

Of course, with Bond, as with Highlander, in the end, there can only be one . . . which is why we always root for 007;)

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Bond and Goodhead jump from the gondola wires, he breaks his tailor's heart, they start making out, the ambulance attendants show up, Bond says "we're fine" and turns his back to them, and while I'm thinking "dude, you've got to be more aware..." sure enough, club to the back of the head, they're loaded up into the ambulance.

For a top spy, Bond sure lets his guard down and allows enemies to get the drop on him. Like, a lot, to the point where some of his aura fades away and he's almost too lucky to be relied upon to get the job done. That club to the back of the head could just as easily have been a bullet. The end.

And, this is not an argument about Moore vs. Connery vs...any who's portrayed the character. This is about writing Bond as this top spy who is often so lucky it's beyond ridiculous. Connery was once wrapped up on a massage table and could not free himself after the voltage was cranked up to 11; had it not been for the nurse returning in time, he'd be dead. I think it was he also who woke up one time in a coffin in a crematorium furnace. He was literally cooked — until someone pulled his sorry ass out.

I get that Bond lives way out at the edge where anything can happen. But if you did, wouldn't you be hyper-alert to what's going on around you?

Drax took the "creative kill" idea to a ridiculous extreme. At any time he had Bond, he could simply have shot him. Boom. Done. I feel like Scotty, Dr. Evil's son who runs funny. Of course, Mike Myers spoofed the absurdity with comic flair. "You just don't GET IT, do you? You DON'T!"

And, this is also not an argument about stuns or action sequences. Trying to regain control of a remotely-controlled helicopter before dropping your nemesis into a smoke stack is great action eye candy. I'm just talking about how much Bond counts on LUCK to just survive.

Isn't that the universal trope in movies (franchise) and television series?

The hero and heroine can get captured, beat up, wounded, but in the end against all odds will always escape and survive. He or she can never die, unless TPTB decide so, and then there is always the possiblity that they return.

@wonder2wonder said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Bond and Goodhead jump from the gondola wires, he breaks his tailor's heart, they start making out, the ambulance attendants show up, Bond says "we're fine" and turns his back to them, and while I'm thinking "dude, you've got to be more aware..." sure enough, club to the back of the head, they're loaded up into the ambulance.

For a top spy, Bond sure lets his guard down and allows enemies to get the drop on him. Like, a lot, to the point where some of his aura fades away and he's almost too lucky to be relied upon to get the job done. That club to the back of the head could just as easily have been a bullet. The end.

And, this is not an argument about Moore vs. Connery vs...any who's portrayed the character. This is about writing Bond as this top spy who is often so lucky it's beyond ridiculous. Connery was once wrapped up on a massage table and could not free himself after the voltage was cranked up to 11; had it not been for the nurse returning in time, he'd be dead. I think it was he also who woke up one time in a coffin in a crematorium furnace. He was literally cooked — until someone pulled his sorry ass out.

I get that Bond lives way out at the edge where anything can happen. But if you did, wouldn't you be hyper-alert to what's going on around you?

Drax took the "creative kill" idea to a ridiculous extreme. At any time he had Bond, he could simply have shot him. Boom. Done. I feel like Scotty, Dr. Evil's son who runs funny. Of course, Mike Myers spoofed the absurdity with comic flair. "You just don't GET IT, do you? You DON'T!"

And, this is also not an argument about stuns or action sequences. Trying to regain control of a remotely-controlled helicopter before dropping your nemesis into a smoke stack is great action eye candy. I'm just talking about how much Bond counts on LUCK to just survive.

Isn't that the universal trope in movies (franchise) and television series?

The hero and heroine can get captured, beat up, wounded, but in the end against all odds will always escape and survive. He or she can never die, unless TPTB decide so, and then there is always the possiblity that they return.

Yes...except, most heros and heroines are not elite special agents who shouldn't make the kind of mistakes regular people make; otherwise, yeah, I hear ya. If he's both invincible and infallible, he's not very relatable. Fair enough.